Brexit

Daily Express and Daily Mail

It should be remembered that most of the newspapers in the UK lean to the right, the Daily Express and Daily Mail are very much on the right of UK politics, and have been long opponents of the EU spreading anti-EU propaganda and lies about it.

See 20 years of FAKE NEWS about EU by UK press. Vote for your ‘favourite’ here:

European Commission in the UK - European Commission

So these newspapers are known liars and are still lying to people.

How our right-wing press entrenched Brexit divisions

The right wing stance of these papers is well known in the UK one joke I heard been – ‘The Daily Mail supported Hitler in the 1930’s and has moved further to the right since then’

(The Daily Mails support for facism - Daily Mail - Wikipedia)

 

17 million voted for a no deal Brexit

The myth that all the people that voted for Brexit voted for the same thing is one that some leavers are still pushing.

It also has to be remembered that it was very close the difference between leave and remain was 3.8 percent or 1.3 million in favour of Leave.

The problem with the first referendum - as has been explained many times in this thread - is that people had many differing views on what voting to leave the EU actually meant (and for many it was a protest vote that had nothing to do with Europe)

ON THE LEAVE SIDE IT WAS A SPLIT VOTE.

Many on the leave side didn’t know what kind of leave they were voting for

While ALL those that voted to remain knew they were voting to remain.

The other thing is that in the referendum even the leaver leadership ruled out a No Deal Brexit, they said time and again that would be bad and would never happen, it was always that they could get a ‘better deal’. The whole idea of a No Deal was called ‘project fear’ by the leaver leadership, no deal was something to be feared – in other words - to not be voted for.

Only later when the true complexities and pitfalls of a Brexit became clear and with it the realisation that any deal would be worse than the one we already had that the simplistic No Deal idea took root amongst those that wanted a simplistic answer, which they could shout but never defend.

And in conversations with people, what I’ve read and listened to since then and looking at what members of Parliament have indicated many of the people that might vote for a Theresa May deal and the majority that would for a single market and customs union deal would not vote for a No Deal (seeing it as dangerous)

The idea that a 17.4 million Britain’s voted for a no deal Brexit is absurd

 

Right wing Newspapers supporting the Prime Minister over Parliament

Thing is that as many have made clear the Supreme Court ruling came about because of the chaos caused by Brexit but it is not about Brexit

This was a matter of abuse of power plain and simple

Anyone that supports the Executive over Parliament in this (including national newspapers) are basically saying they would be happy with that Executive having dictatorial powers.

To make clear, the power to prorogue Parliament was in the Prime Ministers hands out of tradition and convention because it was presumed he wouldn’t abuse that power and no other Prime Minister has.

Basically the executive (Prime Minister and Cabinet) was using its proroguing powers to try and stop oversight and checks on itself by Parliament.

If what Boris did was allowed to stand then basically it meant that this and any future Prime Minister could close down Parliament and rule without it through dictate.

I can only imagine the fuss these right wing papers would kick up if say Jeremey Corbyn was Prime Minister and closed down Parliament to stop its scrutiny of his actions.

 

Well, thats what happened, he went to the queen, she signed off on it. Supreme court turned around cancelled it.

Everyone acting like the Queens a clueless old lady, President of the Supreme court very careful not to atrack the queen

The Queen still has veto powers, they havent been tested in 300 years, wont be over this, but may later on if it devolves into irish unification

The action deemed unlawful, but Boris didnt break any laws, wont be charged with anything

You dont have a written constitution, so everything is open to interpretation, and you only just reorginized your highest court 10/15 years ago.

This is just the start of a constitutional mess

 

Yet again you have scant knowledge of the difference between criminal and civil law. What the Supreme Court determined was that Boris's actions were deemed UNLAWFUL but not ILLEGAL. There is a subtle but important difference between the two concepts.

 

The history of the Supreme Court

As far as I can remember it was just the renaming (and rehousing) of the Law Lords that used to sit as the highest court in the UK within Parliament and so it really has a much longer history than the ten suggested by an ill-informed poster.

Here it is –

The judicial role of the House of Lords evolved over more than 600 years: originally from the work of the royal court, the “Curia Regis”, which advised the sovereign, passed laws and dispensed justice at the highest level.

Until 1399, both Houses of Parliament heard petitions for the judgments of lower courts to be reversed. After this date, the House of Commons stopped considering such cases, leaving the House of Lords as the highest court of appeal. (By custom, the whole House of Lords could sit as a court on special occasions, such as the trial of one of their own members).

In 1876, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act was passed to regulate how appeals were heard. It also appointed Lords of Appeal in Ordinary: highly qualified professional judges working full time on the judicial business of the House. These Law Lords were able to vote on legislation as full Members of the House of Lords, but in practice rarely did so.

Before the second world war, the Law Lords used to hear appeals each day in the chamber of the House of Lords.

After the House of Commons was bombed, the Law Lords moved their hearings to a nearby committee room to escape the noise of the building repairs, constituting themselves as an Appellate Committee for the purpose. In fact, this temporary arrangement proved so successful that it became permanent, and continued for the remainder of the Appellate Committee’s life.

On the commencement of the Supreme Court in October 2009, all current Law Lords became its first Justices.

The first Justices remain Members of the House of Lords, but are unable to sit and vote in the House. All new Justices appointed after October 2009 have been directly appointed to The Supreme Court on the recommendation of a selection commission.

 

Thank you for confirming to everyone in nice bold letters that Boris didnt break any law

 

I will quote that one for now so it doesnt get edited, get back to you in 24 hrs

 

Is Boris Johnson guilty?

Remember this is a matter of an abuse of power

We have a political system based on laws and conventions Boris was found to have broken one of those conventions - an abuse of power – he was judged guilty of that by the Supreme Court.

The power to prorogue Parliament was in the Prime Ministers hands out of tradition and convention because it was presumed he wouldn’t abuse that power and no other Prime Minister has.

Basically the executive (Prime Minister and Cabinet) was using the power to try and stop oversight and checks on itself, the executive.

He was not breaking a law, he was allowed to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament but he was breaking the convention that he not do that to stop Parliament from following out its function and duty to oversee the executive.

He is guilty of an abuse of power but I'm unsure if any actual law was broken.

 

Well he didn't. It was put well this morning on TV by someone, not sure who.. When he did it, it was legal. Now it isn't.

 

Driftrue

You could say that because he did it was the very reason why it became illegal

By going against the convention that said it shouldn’t be done (and so hadn’t been done before) he insured it become firmly something that was illegal to do.

If the courts had not insured that it had become illegal then it opened up the system to the removal of Parliamentary sovereignty.

As I said it seems rather ironic that it was leavers that talked so much about wanting to protect Parliamentary sovereignty (when it wasn't under attack from the EU) were the very ones that actually were trying to attack it.

 

Its still legal. Because there is no law yet. Supreme court this time was acting as the final court of appeal.

The funny part now is that sometime in the future a bill would have to go through parliament, then the queen sign off on it if it passes.

Such a bill would probably set the max length of prorogue at 2, or 3 weeks. Boris tried for 5 weeks. So all this in the end for only a couple weeks. Boris could have maybe got away with 3 weeks

 

Thankyou for confirming he didnt break a law that doesnt exist

 

Doesn't have to be a 'law' but a convention which he broke


https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/09/...ld-boris-johnson-suspending-parliament-was-a/

 

Ooh, a convention, no one gives a shit.

First day parliament is back nothing happened.

Boris aint going anywhere

 

Certainly not !

 

That serious about Corbyn wanting the 4 day working week? Like France

Geezus

 

And good on Boris and all.
Watched him and he is doing a sterling job standing up to all those remain frit bastards who are terrified of an election were Corbyn and the rest will get wiped out.
Gob Shite's the lot of them!

That bloke has got Balls.
Corbyn is shitting his pants!

Roll on 31st October is all I can say, as the quicker we are out of the Shit Hole EU the better.

And as for those gob shite supreme court bastard judges.
Don't get me started! .

 

Yeah, its not just about the EU anymore

Bring them back a couple weeks early, for what, so they can sit around argue, not do anything. Was the little constitutional crisis worth it for a couple weeks of nothing?

Bizarre

 

A bunch of dummies make laws that arbitrarily get passed. This is your life.