Tuesday 24th September 2019

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 12:30 pm

It is PTO time already, it seems.

Why, anything happen today??

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 12:30 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Willow904 wrote:but that unanimous ruling is a very strong indictment of his behaviour and I really can't see how he can continue.
I expect he will, though.

Expect his captive press to be more deranged than ever before in tonight's editions.

Before I heard the judgement, I would have had said the same and yet now I'm much less sure. The unanimous verdict was unexpected, even lawyer commentators didn't anticipate it. He can't be allowed to continue, is the point. How he is stopped is another matter.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 12:51 pm

I'm shocked, shocked that Spiked don't appear to be too happy about this morning's happenings.

spiked
‏@spikedonline
40m40 minutes ago
More
The Supreme Court ruling is a vile assault on the democratic order. The court has taken the side of the anti-democratic Remainer elite against the government and the people. This highly political judgment is a disaster for the nation, says Brendan O’Neill

He seems to have forgotten that "the people" didn't give the government a majority...

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 1:35 pm

Steve Baker on Sky TV saying that he thinks that Parliament should now be prorogued so that the Conservative Party can have their conference.

??

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 1:38 pm

Nick Eardley
‏
Verified account

@nickeardleybbc
Follow Follow @nickeardleybbc
More
PM accuses claimants in Supreme Court case of trying to frustrate Brexit

1:16 PM - 24 Sep 2019

however...

David Allen Green
‏@davidallengreen
8m8 minutes ago
MoreDavid Allen Green Retweeted Nick Eardley
PM's lawyer told Supreme Court that prorogation nothing to do with Brexit

Oops.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 1:38 pm

Amber Rudd auditioning for Cirque du Soleil.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 1:42 pm

So Johnson has finally responded to the Supreme Court ruling and says he "disagrees" with it, as if his opinion is as valid as that of 11 supreme court judges.

There really is only one proper response to such arrogance, for parliament to eject him via a vonc and install an interim, emergency government. Not that they will, too many egos would have to be put to one side, but given Johnson's dismissive response to being found to have acted unlawfully I fear the Benn bill will prove toothless.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 1:47 pm

Willow904 wrote:So Johnson has finally responded to the Supreme Court ruling and says he "disagrees" with it, as if his opinion is as valid as that of 11 supreme court judges.

There really is only one proper response to such arrogance, for parliament to eject him via a vonc and install an interim, emergency government. Not that they will, too many egos would have to be put to one side, but given Johnson's dismissive response to being found to have acted unlawfully I fear the Benn bill will prove toothless.

He's treating the judgement as a mere irritant. He seems to think that it's no big deal but, nevertheless, it's a bit annoying. Rather like a gnat.

Edited - typo

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 1:57 pm

Willow904 wrote:He can't be allowed to continue, is the point. How he is stopped is another matter.

Supreme Court have done their bit, now it's up to Parliament, but are they up to it?

Surely we can still be shocked that a PM of this country can say that he disagrees with the verdict of the SC. A mass walkout of Tory MPs would be justified but that won't happen.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 2:02 pm

Cauliflowers?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 2:05 pm

Willow904 wrote:So Johnson has finally responded to the Supreme Court ruling and says he "disagrees" with it, as if his opinion is as valid as that of 11 supreme court judges.

There really is only one proper response to such arrogance, for parliament to eject him via a vonc and install an interim, emergency government. Not that they will, too many egos would have to be put to one side, but given Johnson's dismissive response to being found to have acted unlawfully I fear the Benn bill will prove toothless.

He has accepted it though, many of his hardline supporters were demanding otherwise.

And if he has to back down on this, might that ultimately be the case with no deal on Oct 31 as well?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 2:23 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Willow904 wrote:So Johnson has finally responded to the Supreme Court ruling and says he "disagrees" with it, as if his opinion is as valid as that of 11 supreme court judges.

There really is only one proper response to such arrogance, for parliament to eject him via a vonc and install an interim, emergency government. Not that they will, too many egos would have to be put to one side, but given Johnson's dismissive response to being found to have acted unlawfully I fear the Benn bill will prove toothless.
He has accepted it though, many of his hardline supporters were demanding otherwise.

And if he has to back down on this, might that ultimately be the case with no deal on Oct 31 as well?

I don't really see where he has backed down. He went through with an unlawful prorogation. Yes, it was overturned, but I can't see how article 50 can be overturned in the same manner, even if Johnson breaks the Benn law to get there, because it was triggered in line with our constitutional principles and the resulting deal was rejected by parliament in full knowledge that crashing out with no deal was a subsequent potential consequence.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 2:28 pm

Eoin Clarke

Tomorrow the UK House of Commons will vote on a motion to break for Parliamentary Recess. The government are proceeding on the expectation that this vote will pass. The UK PM says he still intends to hold a Queen's Speech. That will require proroguing Parliament in Oct (4-6 days)

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 2:32 pm

@willow

Doesn't he just need to write a letter?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 2:39 pm

The Lord Chancellor says the Government respectfully disagrees with the Supreme Court decision.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 2:42 pm

Crankled burbot confusingly disagrees with Supreme Court ruling (6,8).

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 3:04 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@willow

Doesn't he just need to write a letter?

Under the Benn law? Not sure.

I just feel that it's far too much "if 'x' happens then 'y'" for it to be completely watertight, especially in the hands of someone with a proven track record of behaving unlawfully. Meanwhile, nothing needs to happen for us to leave with no deal on 31st October, after which, legally, I see no way of going back.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 3:05 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:The Lord Chancellor says the Government respectfully disagrees with the Supreme Court decision.

"disrespectfully", surely!

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 3:12 pm

Jane Merrick
@janemerrick23
Amber Rudd tells Sky News that the PM can't say prorog wasn't about Brexit and then use as a defence that people are using judiciary to frustrate Brexit - because it shows it *was* about Brexit. "You cannot have it both ways" she says.

Post by **adam** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 3:43 pm

The express and mail comments are full of complaints about how unjust it is for the SC to have reached a decision without actually hearing evidence from sworn witnesses. "Tell me, what actual law has been broken?"

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 3:45 pm

Prior the judgement today, Johnson said he'd abide by the UK Supreme Court's ruling. What's his problem now?

Post by **adam** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 3:46 pm

Willow904 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@willow

Doesn't he just need to write a letter?
Under the Benn law? Not sure.

I just feel that it's far too much "if 'x' happens then 'y'" for it to be completely watertight, especially in the hands of someone with a proven track record of behaving unlawfully. Meanwhile, nothing needs to happen for us to leave with no deal on 31st October, after which, legally, I see no way of going back.

The Benn Act says that in the absence of a withdrawal agreement being settled by 19th October, (or alternatively of Parliament approving to leaving without a withdrawal agreement) then

The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50

So writing a letter saying "I don't want this and I have no reason to back up my request but please" wouldn't meet the terms of the Act.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 4:28 pm

Appalling piece from the Torygraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ers-people" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Supreme Court has sided with usurping remainers over the people.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 4:46 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Appalling piece from the Torygraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ers-people" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Supreme Court has sided with usurping remainers over the people.

Brexit Party MEP - I would expect nothing less...or the Telegraph these days who have hitched themselves to their former columnist so far that it can't now disagree with him.

Today's judgement is actually useful to smoke out those who aren't actually in favour of Parliament itself but pay lip service to it. Given a choice between Brexit against a properly functioning Parliamentary democracy, they choose the former.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 5:12 pm

Six local council byelections last week:

Wiltshire - Tory hold with 57% of the vote in a straight fight with the LibDems, a swing away from them of about 15% since 2017 when the same two parties only contested. Previously there was more competition, but in the first unitary election in 2009 this ward was safely Tory and that result was repeated in 2013 - though a previous by-election in 2014 was quite close, and indicated LibDem potential here.

Hammersmith and Fulham - Labour hold with a share in the mid 40s, a double figure drop since last year. However, there was hardly any pro-Tory swing since they dropped a similar amount and to third place behind the LibDems who advanced by over 20 points to 30% of the vote. This was a notable result in a ward that had previously been a Tory/Labour fight in every election going back to 2002 - its 3 seats were narrowly Labour then, but Tories won it by comfortable margins in 2006 and 2010 only for Labour to win it (and this "flagship" council) back in 2014 and (as more widely locally) strengthen their grip in 2018 - so this can still be considered a decent Labour result on past history.

Liverpool - Labour hold with 55% of the vote, so comfortable enough but down from the 70% plus they had earlier this year. This was partly down to an increase in the "continuity" Liberal party - still something of a force in the city - who almost doubled their vote to 14% and achieved second place (their one previous runner up spot here was in 2012) Not far behind were the LibDems, more than doubled since May but still a very long way short of the pre-coalition years - they comfortably took all three seats in the 2004 all outs and that continued until Labour took a seat on GE day in 2010, followed by their total collapse as in several similar areas. Fourth place taken by a localist left wing "anti cuts" group, then the Greens who were down a bit to 6% (they have previously managed a number of runners up spots here) Tories last with less than 5%.

Canterbury DC - Tory hold, but their share dropped by 7 points to less than half the vote in a previously safe ward - they won both seats comfortably in both the original post-boundary change elections in 2015 and earlier this year. LibDems now made it relatively close, doubling their score to 35% and a swing of around 13% overall. Labour also down to under 10%, followed by an Independent who tried their luck and scored a modest 5%, but that was enough to beat the Greens who lost two thirds of their share from May.

Somerset West/Taunton - the first byelection for a unitary council newly elected in May saw a LibDem gain from Tory in a ward that split 1LD/1C in the inaugural election, though only one LibDem as opposed to two Tories stood then. This time round, they won emphatically with a 20 point increase to 55% - beating the Tories by over 2 to 1. Independents came third as earlier this year, though the share was somewhat down - though not as much as Labour who fell from 13% to 3% - the classic "tactical squeeze" in operation. Greens just behind in last place.

North Lanarkshire - Labour hold with 44% of first preferences, six points down on 2017 when after boundary changes this division split 2Lab/1Nat. It might be worth noting though that the similar predecessor division saw a byelection in mid-2015 (at the SNP's absolute zenith) which the SNP won, given their seeming recovery since the relatively disappointing 2017 GE to see their vote share almost unchanged this time may have disappointed them. Tories down slightly to under 10% (the fall off in their showings since Johnson became PM is notable) followed by two parties which did not stand two years ago - LibDems on over 5% and Greens under 2%.

Five contests this week.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 5:32 pm

Didn't catch it all but Corbyn's speech seemed to go quite well. A slight stumble into it but I thought echoing Greta Thurberg at the end was clever.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 5:44 pm

Ben Bradshaw liked it

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 6:35 pm

Is it three years already that I’ve not been a ‘person’

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 6:39 pm

Have we ever had a properly functioning democracy?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 6:41 pm

Laura Kuenssberg
✔
@bbclaurak

1. No 10 source: “We think the Supreme Court is wrong and has made a serious mistake in extending its reach to these political matters."
1,001
3:47 PM - Sep 24, 2019

Laura Kuenssberg
✔
@bbclaurak
Replying to @bbclaurak

2. Source goes on... "Further, the Supreme Court has made it clear that its reasons are connected to the Parliamentary disputes over, and timetable for, leaving the European Union. We think this is a further serious mistake. "
440
3:47 PM - Sep 24, 2019

Laura Kuenssberg
✔
@bbclaurak
Replying to @bbclaurak

3. No 10 - "We think this is a further serious mistake. We will study the judgement carefully to consider how we can best respond in these unique circumstances. As always the government will respect the law and comply with the courts.”
359
3:48 PM - Sep 24, 2019 (Politics Live, Guardian)

Dangerous and irresponsible. (And inaccurate.)

No 10, that is - not the messenger.

Edited to add Part 3!

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 7:05 pm

19:01
Trump urges Johnson to shrug off 'just another day in the office' court defeat (Politics Live, Guardian)

Post by **refitman** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 7:14 pm

So, about an hour after the BBC showed Corbyn called for Johnson to "consider his position":

Laura Kuenssberg
@bbclaurak
·
8h
SNP calling on Johnson to resign, Tom Watson too .. will Corbyn shortly? Judgement about as bad as it could have been for the govt - held back from getting into the PMs motives

She's not even trying.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 7:29 pm

There;s some cracking replies to this rabble rousing tosh from the other Rees-Mogg

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

The Secret Barrister
‏@BarristerSecret
3h3 hours ago
More
Replying to @zatzi
Has your family not had enough embarrassment for today?

Can't be long before we get "We know where you live"...

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 7:31 pm

zatzi?!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 7:39 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:Have we ever had a properly functioning democracy?

No. Inherited power and money isn't bestowed based upon ability or merit. Society loses when people aren't able to realise their potential.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 7:44 pm

refitman wrote:So, about an hour after the BBC showed Corbyn called for Johnson to "consider his position":
Laura Kuenssberg
@bbclaurak
·
8h
SNP calling on Johnson to resign, Tom Watson too .. will Corbyn shortly? Judgement about as bad as it could have been for the govt - held back from getting into the PMs motives
She's not even trying.

Exactly. She'll see and hear what she wants even if it means she'll miss the truth.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 8:04 pm

This is good from James Kirkup.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/b ... eme-court/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whatever your politics, wherever you are on the Brexit question, you should take comfort in today’s laser-sharp restatement of parliamentary primacy. But those who should cheer most loudly for the Supreme Court today are the Eurosceptics and Brexiteers, who fought so long to bring power back from the European level and to restore Parliament to its rightful place at the apex of the British constitution.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 8:27 pm

citizenJA wrote:---
She'll see and hear what she wants even if it means she'll miss the truth.

(cJA edit)
I must make sure I don't miss the truth

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 9:30 pm

Trump news - live: Threat of impeachment intensifies as president vows to release Ukraine call transcript

Nancy Pelosi 'reconsidering opposition' to impeachment as Ukraine scandal grows (Independent)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 17831.html

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 10:51 pm

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces formal impeachment inquiry of Trump, says his actions were a ‘betrayal of national security’

Better late than never.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 10:51 pm

Tuesday 24 September 2019 4:38 PM
Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party Conference Leader’s address

With a serious industrial strategy and a radical Labour government, the economy can be a tool in our hands rather than the master of our fate. And with a government that’s prepared to intervene we can prioritise the things that matter most.

Which is precisely what our times demand, because nothing matters more than the climate emergency. That means taking on the big polluters and wealth hoarders who profit from the current system. Bringing our emissions down to net zero won’t happen by itself. It will only be possible with massive public investment in renewable energy and green technology.

That’s not a burden. It’s an opportunity to kickstart a Green Industrial Revolution that will create hundreds of thousands of high-skill high-wage unionised jobs as we triple solar power, double onshore wind and bring about a seven-fold increase in offshore wind projects.

And that’s why we announced today that the next Labour will build three new battery plants in South Wales, in Stoke-on-Trent and Swindon.

Good

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 10:58 pm

"Real security doesn’t come from belligerent posturing or reckless military interventions. It comes from international cooperation and diplomacy, and addressing the root causes of the threats we all face. Our foreign policy will be defined by our commitment to human rights and international justice, not enthusiasm for foreign wars that fuel – rather than combat – terrorism and insecurity."

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 10:59 pm

"When Labour wins, the nurse wins, the pensioner wins, the student wins, the office worker wins, the engineer wins. We all win."

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 24 Sep, 2019 11:00 pm

Goodnight, everyone.
love,
cJA