A Political Thread

[Bada-Bing!]

Apparently a white house official threatened to fire senior officials at the us weather department of they did not retract their report contradicting trump that the hurricane would hit Alabama.

Seriously Americans, what the **** will it take for you to vote these shits out of office!? Anyone going to support falsifying a hurricane report just to protect the president's ******* fragile ego!? This is insane! How the **** can such a large segment of the populace not see it!?

Because the electoral college system over represents the idiots' votes in the rural parts of America and in the swing states who vote for Trump.

 

[Which Tyler]

It's only fair to recognise when the government does a good thing. Albeit only to verse a bad thing May did.
Baby steps
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49655719

 

[Gavin]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49655226

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to annex part of the occupied West Bank if he is returned to office next week.

He would apply "Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea", a policy certain to be backed by the right-wing parties whose support he would need for a coalition.

Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat said such annexation moves would "bury any chance of peace".

Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967 but stopped short of annexation.

 

[Which Tyler]

Breaking news - Scottish court of appeal has ruled prorogation unlawful - and that's before the release of communications around the decision to prorogue.

Safe to assume that this will bump up to the supreme court; but does that mean parliament is recalled pending that decision? or is it all too late to make a real difference beyond optics?



ETA: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

Only a headline at time of posting, will inevitably be editted over the next few hours (I've been buggered on that before).

 

[Amiga500]

Some craic now...

How quick will the supreme court have the hearing on Bozo's power grab?

 

[ncurd]

Some craic now...

How quick will the supreme court have the hearing on Bozo's power grab?

Not until next Tuesday, arguments now being had whether parliament is prorogued or not.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Effectively saying that Bojo misled Her Maj.....surely a career ending move if the Supreme Court agrees?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

So the justice secretary is at odds with no10 over judicial impartiality. Watson's at odds with Jezza about unequivocally backing remain. A court ruling that the PM misled HM and no one seems quite sure whether parliament will be sitting by the end of the day or not.

What a sh*t show.

Commons chamber currently full of school kids on a tour. Unlike the usual inhabitants they have an excuse for acting like children.

 

[Which Tyler]

The Inner House of the Court of Session has ruled that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen that the United Kingdom Parliament should be prorogued from a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October was unlawful because it had the purpose of stymying Parliament.

A petition for judicial review was raised by 79 petitioners, 78 of whom are parliamentarians at Westminster, on 31 July 2019, seeking inter alia declarator that it would be unlawful for the UK Government to advise HM the Queen to prorogue the UK Parliament with a view to preventing sufficient time for proper consideration of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit).

A substantive hearing was fixed for Friday, 6 September, but on 28 August, on the advice of the Prime Minister, HM the Queen promulgated an Order in Council proroguing Parliament on a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October. The Lord Ordinary (the judge hearing the case at first instance) refused to grant interim orders preventing the prorogation, but brought the substantive hearing forward to Tuesday, 3 September. On the eve of the hearing, in obedience of its duty of candour, the respondent lodged some partially redacted documents exhibiting some of the Government's deliberations regarding prorogation, going back to 15 August.

The Lord Ordinary dismissed the petition. He found that the PM's advice to HM the Queen on prorogation was, as a matter of high policy and political judgment, non-justiciable; the decision to proffer the advice was not able to be assessed against legal standards by the courts.

The reclaiming motion (appeal) was heard by the First Division of the Court of Session over 5 and 6 September. Parliament was prorogued in the early hours of Tuesday, 10 September.

All three First Division judges have decided that the PM's advice to the HM the Queen is justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliament and that it, and what has followed from it, is unlawful.

The Lord President, Lord Carloway, decided that although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The circumstances in which the advice was proffered and the content of the documents produced by the respondent demonstrated that this was the true reason for the prorogation.

Lord Brodie considered that whereas when the petition was raised the question was unlikely to have been justiciable, the particular prorogation that had occurred, as a tactic to frustrate Parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful. This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities. It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action. The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny. The documents provided showed no other explanation for this. The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK Government and the Prime Minister wished to restrict Parliament.

The Court also decided that it should not require disclosure of the unredacted versions of the documents lodged by the respondent.

The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.

 

[Which Tyler]

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MallowNews/status/1171162694050832385

Really starting to think BoJo just loves pingers and is on the strangest love buzz out there.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Andrew Neil skewering Kwasi Kwarteng on BBC2. Bet he hates his job right now.

 

[ncurd]

Just seen another long term Conservative voting friend say not under this government.

Was watching the filming of The Mash Report (lefty news satire program on BBC tonight 10pm) yesterday as they released yellowhammer. Great to watch comedy being written on the fly but there news is mad right now.

 

[Dai Yorkshire]

what I cant seem to grasp is how can anyone prove that Johnson lied how did they come to that conclusion ? was it just an assumption. be very very difficult to prove that if they could I agree he's stuffed, but not yet

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

what I cant seem to grasp is how can anyone prove that Johnson lied how did they come to that conclusion ? was it just an assumption. be very very difficult to prove that if they could I agree he's stuffed, but not yet

Hence the demands for correspondence between the people involved to see if there was any indication that they intended to use it to shove through a no deal brexit. Also seeing the state of negotiations with the EU to see if any actual attempt was made to negotiate or if they lied there.

 

[General Melchett]

Hence the demands for correspondence between the people involved to see if there was any indication that they intended to use it to shove through a no deal brexit. Also seeing the state of negotiations with the EU to see if any actual attempt was made to negotiate or if they lied there.

I heard BoJo say in a recent interview "Let's see what the Supreme court rules on Tuesday". Wonder if he's been tipped off that it's in the bag.
Unless they demand to see the correspondence I can't see the Supreme court making a judgement on political motive but only the law, which as it stands has been abused and is open to abuse.

 

[Which Tyler]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2168187863396064&id=350134361768606

 

[Amiga500]

In other news:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49663525

EU to appoint Irish ex-farmer as trade commissioner.

I'm sure that'll really help Bozo get a great deal.

A few of big-Phil's quotes:

"If the UK fails to prevent a crash-out Brexit they should be under no illusion regarding the foul atmosphere they will create with their EU partners and the serious consequences this will have for negotiating any future trade agreement...The UK government's only Churchilian legacy will be - 'never have so few done so much damage to so many'... Gambling with peace and the Good Friday Agreement is not good politics."

"Don't be misguided by those extremists riding the wrecking ball and calling for the EU's disappearance. Don't be misled by the rhetoric of Mr Johnson, Mr Farage and Mr Rees-Mogg. They like to see themselves as the Three Musketeers. They are more like the Three Stooges."

He also introduced the very controversial water charge in the ROI, so not afraid to get his boots dirty.

 

[Which Tyler]

This is concerning: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trade-bill-dropped-brexit-prorogation-boris-johnson-trump-a9102516.html

The trade bill has been dropped – and now MPs have no way to stop bad deals after Brexit
​

Boris Johnson's controversial decision to prorogue parliament did many things, but at its most basic level the break from ordinary parliamentary business simply means that an old legislative session comes to an end and a new one begins. The government decides which unfinished bills it wants to keep and reintroduces them in the new parliamentary session. The rest are simply dropped.

The trade bill, once considered one of the most important pieces of Brexit legislation, is one such bill to have been abandoned.

It is always unusual for a government to deliberately drop legislation – why introduce something you don't intend to pass? – but the case of the trade bill, in particular, should concern us all. Its death means MPs now won't get a say on our post-Brexit trade deals. Politicians in both houses of parliament worked to amend the bill over a period of two years. The amendment gave MPs a guaranteed vote on post-Brexit trade agreements, such as any deal with Donald Trump.


Believe it or not, without the amendment proposed in that bill the UK's system of trade deal ratification doesn't give MPs any meaningful or guaranteed say over the country's trade agreements. So as things stand, after Brexit we will revert to a World War I convention called the "Ponsonby rule" for ratifying international deals. This convention severely limits the role of MPs; it was created to deal with secret defence treaties, long before trade deals were as globally significant as they are now.



Article continues...

 

[General Melchett]

I see David Cameron is about to release his book, six weeks before Brexit. Hmmmm. You've got to applaud in the timing in terms of maximising sales and the irony seeing as he was instrumental in all of this.