Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lykos

UK politics - The Yellowhammer Made The Robin Weep

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, ants said:

Don't they have a deputy leader role? 

No, Deputy Prime Minister, but Dominic Raab is First Secretary of State (which is an honorary title) and implies cabinet rank over all other Secretaries of State.  He would be the most likely candidate to take over PMQs if Boris was unavailable, for example. 

Edited by Gaston de Foix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Raja said:

Why is the UK supreme court relatively new? 

The highest court used to be the Law Lords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad the courts were able to frustrate Johnson's evil schemes, but I hope it doesn't become an American-style system where courts become the regular place of last political resort.

I'm pretty sure Johnson won't resign and I wouldn't be surprised if he requests another (but shorter, within the usual 4-6 days cited) proroguation period just to give the bird to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so the house of commons sits at 11:30 tomorrow, that should be just in time for an interesting PMQ's

 

Boris is not going to have a good day tomorrow either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

so the house of commons sits at 11:30 tomorrow, that should be just in time for an interesting PMQ's

 

Boris is not going to have a good day tomorrow either.

There won't be a PMQs - that requires 3 days notice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyler beat me to the punch.  But the interesting thing about Bercow's announcement is that emergency applications under Standing Order No. 24 will be considered.  But I don't know if there's actually a plan to introduce any new legislation at this point. Maybe the suppposed fix to the Benn Bill?

Edited by Gaston de Foix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

 

I know this is a gag, but believe me, Liz was not deceived: she may have pretended to be for the sake of convenience, but she knew what Johnson was doing. As I said then, she was never going to stop it: not because she agreed or disagreed, but because she refuses to use any of her notional powers for fear of endangering her family's position. 

An interesting note is that since the judges have said Parliament was never prorogued, the bills that were dropped now live again, including the trade bill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mormont said:

I know this is a gag, but believe me, Liz was not deceived: she may have pretended to be for the sake of convenience, but she knew what Johnson was doing. As I said then, she was never going to stop it: not because she agreed or disagreed, but because she refuses to use any of her notional powers for fear of endangering her family's position.

Of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mormont said:

I know this is a gag, but believe me, Liz was not deceived: she may have pretended to be for the sake of convenience, but she knew what Johnson was doing. As I said then, she was never going to stop it: not because she agreed or disagreed, but because she refuses to use any of her notional powers for fear of endangering her family's position. 

An interesting note is that since the judges have said Parliament was never prorogued, the bills that were dropped now live again, including the trade bill. 

The one thing the Queen could have constitutionally done was to advise Boris, privately, against it, based on her role as a constitutional monarch. A younger monarch, with better informed advisers, might have chosen that route.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... Prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit

Simultaneously, stopping Prorogation is all and only about stopped Brexit; and the judges are (predictably enough) "enemies of the people" for applying the law.

 

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/leave-eu-dubs-supreme-court-lawyers-enemies-of-the-people/24/09/

 


The Leave community don't appear to be as fond of the phrase "You lost, get over it" as they used to be

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

The one thing the Queen could have constitutionally done was to advise Boris, privately, against it, based on her role as a constitutional monarch. A younger monarch, with better informed advisers, might have chosen that route.  

Nope. The PM advises Liz, never the other way around. At most, she'd be allowed an "is that wise, sir?" but that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

So... Prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit

Simultaneously, stopping Prorogation is all and only about stopped Brexit; and the judges are (predictably enough) "enemies of the people" for applying the law.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/leave-eu-dubs-supreme-court-lawyers-enemies-of-the-people/24/09/


The Leave community don't appear to be as fond of the phrase "You lost, get over it" as they used to be

"Inventing" the law, rather than "applying." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

"Inventing" the law, rather than "applying." 

Nope - I used the right word.

Parliament makes laws, the courts enforce them

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to the Marquis, this judgement isn't really about applying laws, as in specific acts of Parliament. It's about applying constitutional principles. Does that constitute 'the law', in an abstract sense? I'd say it does, in that it is about the rule of law. But it isn't about applying a particular law. And the constitutional principles which are applied are not in any one comprehensive, easy-to-read document, but are rather emergent. So it's not as clear-cut as 'the government broke the terms of said Act'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if Johnson were to resign (I know he won't, but let's stay in the hypothetical please), would there be another Tory leadership challenge. Please. Come on, Tory party you can't allow to get outstupid by the Labour party. I want PM Demonic Raab or at least PM Esther McVey. More cray cray please.

Edited by A Horse Named Stranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So. After the UK's Supreme Court ruling that BJ lied to the queen re proroguing Parliament and that suspending Parliament was illegal and against the unwritten Constitution, the pound surged again, when it had been falling falling falling against the US dollar. But it fell again though, due to BREXIT uncertainty. In the meantime US hedge funds feasted mightily upon the corpse of Thomas Cook's demise (whether or not it was a poorly run company is irrelevant to the hedger-hyena gobble), only the first of the ravening Wall Street hyena pack upon UK's institutions, public and private. Certain reminders of the merry dismemberment and swallage whole of the former Soviet public sectors by those come to be known as the Oligarchs (the sorts known in other states as 'mafia,' 'corporations' and etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Zorral said:

In the meantime US hedge funds feasted mightily upon the corpse of Thomas Cook's demise (whether or not it was a poorly run company is irrelevant to the hedger-hyena gobble), only the first of the ravening Wall Street hyena pack upon UK's institutions, public and private. Certain reminders of the merry dismemberment and swallage whole of the former Soviet public sectors by those come to be known as the Oligarchs (the sorts known in other states as 'mafia,' 'corporations' and etc.).

Not really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Zorral said:

So. After the UK's Supreme Court ruling that BJ lied to the queen re proroguing Parliament and that suspending Parliament was illegal and against the unwritten Constitution, the pound surged again, when it had been falling falling falling against the US dollar. But it fell again though, due to BREXIT uncertainty. In the meantime US hedge funds feasted mightily upon the corpse of Thomas Cook's demise (whether or not it was a poorly run company is irrelevant to the hedger-hyena gobble), only the first of the ravening Wall Street hyena pack upon UK's institutions, public and private. Certain reminders of the merry dismemberment and swallage whole of the former Soviet public sectors by those come to be known as the Oligarchs (the sorts known in other states as 'mafia,' 'corporations' and etc.).

Brexit was a factor for Thomas Cook to go bust, but it was not the sole reason. Their takeover of that other travel agency was a very bad piece of business that cost them money. Then the way of how people travel has changed (more city trips (not gonna go on rant about the evil of AirBnB, and how every AirBnB traveller to a metropolitan area with exploding rents deserves a special place in hell) and less beach holidays) and more competition from the internet. Those were the things that sent them spinning in the first place. Brexit uncertainty and the devaluation of the pound and thus some further reduction in demand was one blow to many. The UK goverment unwilling to spent 150m to keep them afloat was then the final nail in the coffin.

TUI is also having similar problems, however they are lucky as they also own their stinking cruise ships and some of their hotels, so their position is not as horrible as Thomas Cook's. With a competitor (TC) gone, that should help them somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Raja said:

Why is the UK supreme court relatively new? Is that because Scotland has different laws? I've obviously been following all this stuff but I'm a recent transplant and haven't quite been able to figure out why the court was established in 2009.

Before that it used to be the Law Lords, who were automatically members of the House of Lords - in 2009 the government finally got around to separating the top level of the judiciary from also being part of the legislature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×