The Brexit Arms

[BrexitArmsLandlady]

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Go BoJo!
Go BoJo!
Go BoJo!
Go BoJo!

So near & yet so far..............

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Imnot - It was brilliant, he was his usual ambulant self. You should have a look on I player very stirring and certainly not contrite in any way shape or form.

ambulant?

I heard about Geoffrey Cox's speech when I was on my lunch break. I was surprised that the Attorney General would embarrass himself with barrack room lawyer stuff. And then it got worse.

Dark - absolutely no one is justifying or excusing Jo Cox's murder. I hardly think saying the Ben Bill is a surrender bill - surrendering to the EU. Has absolutely nothing to do with anyone being sent death threats. There was so much bile being thrown about by the opposition not only last night but by Paula Sherriff in her earlier interview today that it beggars belief.

Would that be when Geoffrey Cox did the “when did you stop beating your wife?” “quip”?

Sorry Auldaliance should read ebullient!
The 'when did you stop beating your wife ' quip is quite a common saying in explaining a position a defence lawyer might take. He did apologise.

He did apologise

So he should. Not appropriate (as an Ambassador might say to someone reciting Kipling in a Buddhist temple).

Although I do think Cox was probably was as ambulant as he was ebullient (and mellifluous).

Double, the strong suggestion from both Boris Johnson and Cummings has been that people are fully in their rights to issue violent threats and abuse because Brexit has not been completed. To that extent, the PM and his people are excusing murder, and sounding rather like blackmailers. Immediately after the PM says this, there come reports of more threats and abuse in the name of Brexit.

Thanks for the answer btw.

Smiletho. Good question. I did not foresee a time when decisions made in parliament would be continually challenged in the courts by people with very deep pockets (Remainer bankers). When this did start happening, I trusted that the courts would reject the challenges as not justiciable, just as the High Court did. The SC is a new experiment dreamed up by Blair. They have over reached themselves and the result is that teams of lawyers funded by bankers in the City of London and beyond will always be able to overrule the govt. That is obviously not desirable, so the SC will have to be changed.
I don't by the way think that BJ was sensible to prorogue. It was a crass thing to do. But it was his right to do so and the way to counter it was a VONC. The SC was wrong to say it was unlawful. The High Court was right to say it was not justiciable ( in my opinion). But the damage is done now and the next thing will be US style elected judges which will be shit.

The SC was wrong to say it was unlawful

Interesting. If it had been a split decision, say 6 to 5, or even 8 to 3, then that would give a hint to it being not clear cut.

But 11-0 on justiciable and unlawful is absolutely clear cut, no?

Would that be when Geoffrey Cox did the “when did you stop beating your wife?” “quip”?

He did apologise

So he should. Not appropriate

In typical duplicitous & opportunistic style, the MP who was so utterly appalled by his well known 'loaded question' quote & just couldn't understand what it meant, had herself used the self same response previously on twitter.

Quelle surprise...

Orangin

If the Supreme Court had intervened to stop a Momentum stuffed Labour minority government from proroguing Parliament for 5 weeks so the Armed Forces Act was not renewed would you be equally uncomfortable?

Either all PM’s have the power to prorogue when they want for as long as they want: or none of them do.

It was strangely unanimous.
But it was different to the High Court. The High Court judges were arguably more expert in constitutional law.
Anyway, the damage is done now. No doubt the old system was not perfect. But the current mess of the FTPA and legal interference seems to have created this nightmare parliament that cannot be put out of its misery.

The High Court Judges are not more expert in Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court justices are the most senior judges for a reason.

Smiletho. I did not say the judiciary was biased. I think my explanations have been quite long enough!

The decision to prorogue parliament was not made in parliament: it was made by the executive alone, in private, in fact amongst only a couple of them. That might sound a picky distinction, but the point is it was an entirely non-consensual decision forced on parliament at a time when we really needed them in place for discussion of the most momentous decision in British history since wartime.

It's not a new thing that governments are taken to courts in the UK. The ability to do so is an essential check on the power of government. Government and law should work together to provide law and order for all in the country. Not all MPs are lawyers, not all know everything about the law. Occasionally a check is needed, do you not think?

If the Supreme Court had intervened to stop a Momentum stuffed Labour minority government from proroguing Parliament for 5 weeks so the Armed Forces Act was not renewed would you be equally uncomfortable?
In that instance a VONC would get rid of said minority Momentum govt. It is the combination of FTPA and SC (both very recent inventions) that needs addressing in my opinion. It is why we are stuck with BJ and why we would be stuck with that fictional Momentum govt in the unlikely event that the bankers were on their side.

The Supreme Court may be new but it is just a separation of the Judicial Committee of the HoL into an entity expressly separated from the Legislature. The same judges would have in all likelihood made the same decision as Law Lords in the HoL.

But in the past this would never have gone to court. There would have been a VONC.

Anyway I have a question for you. Did you know that Gina Miller's lawyer Lord Pannickrepresented the Kingdom of Saudi Arabiain its claim tostate immunityagainst claims oftorture?
Such lawyers will always win their cases if their clients have deep enough pockets. It's not that the judges are biased, it's that very skilled lawyers can make an irrefutable case out of anything.

Such lawyers will always win their cases if their clients have deep enough pockets

Lord Pannick was pro bono for the Miller case on prorogation.