Enough already. There is a Trump thread for this kind of sniping.

Greta’s performance was by definition of petulant. Critics speak of Trump metaphorically as a child, yet grovel and self-flagellate in front of a literal one. — NOS4A2

Clearly we need a Greta thread so that people can sneer at a sixteen year old for being sixteen.

Sorry, you're right, I don't think I need to say any more though.

:up: :sparkle:
Looking forward to more of your Brexit and prorogation analysis :smile:

That should only be brought in if it wins in a referendum. We don't need another referendum on it, I'd say. The results would probably be more or less the same as last time. I would vote against it if given the option. — S

Would you vote for AV rather than PR?

11-0. The Supreme Court is unanimous that prorogation is justiciable.

The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”. However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its extent. The second is whether the exercise of that power, within its limits, is open to legal challenge. This second question may depend upon what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. All the parties to this case accept that. This Court has concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament.

11-0. The Supreme Court is unanimous that this prorogation was unlawful.

The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

Parliament isn't prorogued.

This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

Summary

Judgement

That should only be brought in if it wins in a referendum. We don't need another referendum on it, I'd say. The results would probably be more or less the same as last time. I would vote against it if given the option.
— S

Would you vote for AV rather than PR? — Michael

Objection. Irrelevant, your Honour.

Excellent, clear cut. Delighted. Now Parliament can continue the good fight...
Scrutinise Tory government to death. They are to be held to account.
Johnson's position should be untenable.

Man this season of Brexit is so good. So many plot twists.

Man this season of Brexit is so good. So many plot twists. — StreetlightX

True, but I hope it gets cancelled. I'd rather watch something less interesting.

All thanks to Gina Miller.

All thanks to Gina Miller. — Punshhh

Not just her. There were 2 cases being discussed and I think one was by a group of MPs.

True, but I hope it gets cancelled. I'd rather watch someone less interesting.

You could try political satire, it can be just as interesting, but less worrying, and It can be funny too.

Prepare for the second great sulk.

Yes, I had faith in Dominic Grieve, but Gina picked up the baton first.

You could try political satire, it can be just as interesting, but less worrying, and It can be funny too. — Punshhh

The Thick of It and In the Loop. Love 'em.

The Thick of it and In the Loop. Love 'em.

I like Dead Ringers too. The highlight at the moment is Alexie Sayle's imaginary sandwich bar.

All thanks to Gina Miller.
— Punshhh

Not just her. There were 2 cases being discussed and I think one was by a group of MPs. — Michael

Indeed. Gina Miller has been excellent.Twice over.
And yes, the Supreme Court upheld the decision made by the Scottish court.

'The SNP’s Joanna Cherry led the legal challenge brought by 75 parliamentarians in Scotland’s top civil court, seeking to block the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend.'

However, all of this should not have been necessary. If we had a written constitution perhaps we would not have to deal with this total disaster of a would-be dictatorship.
But it's now back to Brexit.
And more misleading lies...

However, all of this should not have been necessary. If we had a written constitution perhaps we would not have to deal with this total disaster of a would-be dictatorship.
But it's now back to Brexit.
And more misleading lies... — Amity

Seeing how many issues the U.S. has over the Second Amendment, I'm glad we don't have a written Constitution.

Well, that's another bad story. So what would be the best way forward ?
There has to be something in place whereby we don't rely on a private individual to hold government to account. Do we have to keep returning to the Supreme Court every time a Johnson comes along...

The Brexit referendum was a farce. Still think the result should be overturned. Null and void it too, please.
Moving on...

The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

Well I'm surprised by that, but really pleased. It prioritises parliament's right and abilty to hold the govt to account. The next question is whether Boris can keep his job. The opposition hope not, but I think the populist rules the Tories now espouse say he can..

So many plot twists. — StreetlightX

And with a cliffhanger ending, to boot!

This is what I expected, and is the crux of the attack on the constitution by those who are trying to ram through a no deal Brexit. The guarantee, which once I realised this is gave me confidence, was the realisation that once the request was made by Jacob Rees Mogg to the Queen to prorogue, the government had put the Queen and therefore the Crown in a compromised position, for political expediency. The courts would never allow this to happen. Which is why the judgement was kept as far away from the Queen as possible.

I'm pleased that Law has been re-established today. Let's hope it doesn't bring American intervention! :)

I doubt Trump is coming to the rescue, he's still being chased round the room by Greta.

Would you vote for AV rather than PR? — Michael

I'd vote for neither. I'd vote to keep FPTP. Although admittedly I have a conflict of interest as a member of the Labour party.

Wonderful news.

:roll:
Not damned Trump again. I give up.
Let's bring him in to every political discussion, why don't we.
Just like the worst of journalism.

Seeing how many issues the U.S. has over the Second Amendment, I'm glad we don't have a written Constitution. — Michael

But could the British do away with freedom of religion with a referendum?

I would never sneer at a child, just the adults who abuse them.

My apologies.

My apologies. — NOS4A2

Very kind of you.
I won't be making any more fuss about off topicness.
A bit of a waste of time, as are some 'sorries'.
An apology is empty and meaningless if the action is repeated.