FT: Bojo to override WA

[Borg Refinery]

So what.. because the Remainers were corrupt and fecked about nonstop that makes it OK for this Brexi govt to do the same?

Is this what things have descended into..

How do you mean so what, the whole thing was based on utter lies and propaganda. If Westminster knew which they did, guess who else knew?

I mean it as in "...so.. what, this is how things are?" not as in "so what.. I don't care".

Of course the whole thing has been lies and propaganda. But at least be straight and admit that every side has engaged in it - yes including the EU at times too - as you'd expect from politicians.

The answer to me is to accept that Brexit was always a distraction from day to day running of the country, if you want to force things through with no oversight then that's what you do. And before you start attacking me, Tory remainers are equally as guilty of that and several Labour & LD people with big shares in pharma and other large corporate interests...

[Sheepy]

So what.. because the Remainers were corrupt and fecked about nonstop that makes it OK for this Brexi govt to do the same?

Is this what things have descended into..

How do you mean so what, the whole thing was based on utter lies and propaganda. If Westminster knew which they did, guess who else knew?

[Good old]

Perhaps Sir Starmer would consider including rejoining in his next manifesto!

I hope he doesn't,  the EU, would only offer a crap option.  Toots,  my objection was how a rarely used option of referendum was in the end used to question the very sovereignty , that was said  to be so important to protect. The fact that the highest court in the land needed to confirm parliaments rights, in effect that very same sovereignty  showed the dangers invoked by the way this whole affair was conducted.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that approaching the High Courts was a good or bad thing?

It was a good thing in so much as it established what the executive should have known, and therefore not attempted to challenge parliaments rights. It should not have been needed, as the sovereignty of parliament was long established .
If the courts had not ruled , then parliament could have been bypassed for any number of reasons in future by any executive of any persuasion.

I was afraid you were going to say that, but as my memory serves it wasn't so simple. Gone was a functioning parliament with an almost absent majority and a weak PM surrounded by rebels and a Speaker who had only one agenda and an axe to grind.

This wasn't parliamentary sovereignty, it was mutiny, not against the executive but the people. Every way possible was used to deny us our vote, and whatever excuses might be given it does not allow for the complete lack of discipline in parliament by those who forgot who their paymaster are, and I suspect a Court who acted not totally impartially. They should not have ruled.

It has been 4 years of disgrace and Westminsteroids should not only have learned lessons but owe us a contrite apology.

If it didn't warrant an argument ,why is Boris, still to this day supposed to be engaged in trying to get a deal. ?
The courts had to rule , if they  had not a precedent would have been set taking us back to the days of the Charles, kings
Parliaments could have been shut for months on end by any regime for any reason,  and that is the danger area this government has been prepared to enter.

[Borg Refinery]

So what.. because the Remainers were corrupt and fecked about nonstop that makes it OK for this Brexi govt to do the same?

Is this what things have descended into..

[Good old]

I quiet believe  you and many on here have been critical of their democracy for some time. But rarely has the executive wrongly  put such pressure on the long established process of our sovereign parliament. Very worrying for some of us.

Lord Cooper's much-cited judgement in McCormack vs the Lord Advocate (1953) where he stated that "the principle of unlimited sovereignty of parliament is a distinctly English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law"


Lord Cooper's core finding was that the Acts of Union preserved the rights of the Scottish people as being sovereign, and that that status is an essential part of the Acts which cannot be changed, for all time

That judgement did not effect the more recent rulings by supreme courts in Scotland and London, which pitted the executive against the will of parliament over the imposition  prorogation. The  Mc, Cormack ruling was an affirmation of Scots rights in law within the union. It merely meant parliament could not by pass rights already inshrined in Scots law. Quiet different from parliaments rights being bypassed by the executive. As Parliament can not over rule the established law or courts in England, on most issues either, it has no baring on the conduct between executive and parliament.

[Sheepy]

.

This wasn't parliamentary sovereignty, it was mutiny, not against the executive but the people.

Exactly toots . Totally agree wiht you here. Remember , while good old hides behind parliamentray sovereignty like many other remainers , cast your mind back to the fact both labour and tory in 2017 , and their mps stood on brexit manifestos , then once elected , proceeded to laugh at the voters who had voted for them to get brexit done.

Thats what brought about the GE in 2019 after two years of painfull backstabbing and log jamming .......liars lied to get elected in 2017 and then hid behind parliamentray process to piss all over the will of the people.

...and the english voters patience snapped.

That's how I remember it Thomas, but it's irritating to hear other's amnesia. Watching parliament day after day while both sides of the house fought each other and the electorate, until they had to finally submit themselves to the peoples' vote, something that Labour in particular and remainers in general feared most, was insulting to us who paid their salaries. This was not about runnine the country it was only a battle of inflated egos led by the Speaker.

Well that has gone and done it Toots, in a democracy it is written the people are sovereign, not those Whitehall clowns, they ain't going to be happy.

[T00ts]

.

This wasn't parliamentary sovereignty, it was mutiny, not against the executive but the people.

Exactly toots . Totally agree wiht you here. Remember , while good old hides behind parliamentray sovereignty like many other remainers , cast your mind back to the fact both labour and tory in 2017 , and their mps stood on brexit manifestos , then once elected , proceeded to laugh at the voters who had voted for them to get brexit done.

Thats what brought about the GE in 2019 after two years of painfull backstabbing and log jamming .......liars lied to get elected in 2017 and then hid behind parliamentray process to piss all over the will of the people.

...and the english voters patience snapped.

That's how I remember it Thomas, but it's irritating to hear other's amnesia. Watching parliament day after day while both sides of the house fought each other and the electorate, until they had to finally submit themselves to the peoples' vote, something that Labour in particular and remainers in general feared most, was insulting to us who paid their salaries. This was not about runnine the country it was only a battle of inflated egos led by the Speaker.

[Thomas]

.

This wasn't parliamentary sovereignty, it was mutiny, not against the executive but the people.

Exactly toots . Totally agree wiht you here. Remember , while good old hides behind parliamentray sovereignty like many other remainers , cast your mind back to the fact both labour and tory in 2017 , and their mps stood on brexit manifestos , then once elected , proceeded to laugh at the voters who had voted for them to get brexit done.

Thats what brought about the GE in 2019 after two years of painfull backstabbing and log jamming .......liars lied to get elected in 2017 and then hid behind parliamentray process to piss all over the will of the people.

...and the english voters patience snapped.

[Sheepy]

There was a point in WWII as I recall where Churchill was  going to go into union with France as well?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/536106/

Anyway my point being, don't listen to the Westminster party, they knew full well they had no right to sign anything on behalf of the British people, that was all smoke and mirrors.

[T00ts]

Perhaps Sir Starmer would consider including rejoining in his next manifesto!

I hope he doesn't,  the EU, would only offer a crap option.  Toots,  my objection was how a rarely used option of referendum was in the end used to question the very sovereignty , that was said  to be so important to protect. The fact that the highest court in the land needed to confirm parliaments rights, in effect that very same sovereignty  showed the dangers invoked by the way this whole affair was conducted.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that approaching the High Courts was a good or bad thing?

It was a good thing in so much as it established what the executive should have known, and therefore not attempted to challenge parliaments rights. It should not have been needed, as the sovereignty of parliament was long established .
If the courts had not ruled , then parliament could have been bypassed for any number of reasons in future by any executive of any persuasion.

I was afraid you were going to say that, but as my memory serves it wasn't so simple. Gone was a functioning parliament with an almost absent majority and a weak PM surrounded by rebels and a Speaker who had only one agenda and an axe to grind.

This wasn't parliamentary sovereignty, it was mutiny, not against the executive but the people. Every way possible was used to deny us our vote, and whatever excuses might be given it does not allow for the complete lack of discipline in parliament by those who forgot who their paymaster are, and I suspect a Court who acted not totally impartially. They should not have ruled.

It has been 4 years of disgrace and Westminsteroids should not only have learned lessons but owe us a contrite apology.

[Thomas]

This is a role which in the last four decades it has serially failed to fulfil, starting with the Local Government Reorganisation Act (Scotland) of 1973.

Fife County Council refused to dissolve itself under the Act, and when the then Secretary of State for Scotland (Willie Hamilton, Labour) tried to enforce Fife's dissolution he found himself face to face with this very conundrum, when the Queen refused to sign the Order in Council dissolving Fife County Council, in order to uphold and protect the people's historical rights. The expected legal challenge from the Secretary of State in the Court of Session never came, and Fife County Council went on as before, simply changing its name to Fife Region as its part of the local government reorganisation.

Some authorities go so far as to argue that the Local Government Reorganisation (Scotland) Act 1973 was unconstitutional. The reason they argue is that the rights, liberties and freedoms of the Scottish Royal Burghs were not Westminster's to remove, as they were individual contracts agreed between the Scottish crown and the burghs and these arrangements were protected under the articles of the 1707 Treaty of Union for all time.

This may well be why the Queen Of Scots was not prepared to sign for the demise of Fife County Council, and why the Secretary of State did not engage in a legal challenge – to do so could well have seen the whole 1973 Act holed below the waterline, when it hit this particular constitutional iceberg in the Court of Session.

[Thomas]

..but the UK Parliament is sovereign on non-devolved issues..

Thats a misunderstanding of scots constitutional law stevlin.

Its not that the uk parliament is sovereign over scots "non devolved issues" , its more the fact our scottish sovereign voice is represented at westminster through originally the scottishgrand committee , and then latterly the scottish office.

(Constitutionally it can be argued that as Westminster is a parliamentary democracy where the Royal Sovereignty is held within that parliament – anything the parliament at Westminster decides in the monarch's name with respect to Scotland, but which the people of Scotland oppose, could in fact cause the monarch to be removed from her Scottish crown)

This major constitutional hurdle for Westminster has always been in place. The original mechanism designed to circumvent it was the Scottish Grand Committee – which notionally represented the Scottish people's sovereign voice at Westminster – and in turn the Scottish Office, whose statutory role is to ensure that no UK Law or Statute conflicts with or affects the core rights of the sovereign Scottish people

[Borg Refinery]

Stevlin, don't you dismiss everyone's replies to you as 'nonsense' no matter how textbook definition the quotes are? You can believe as you wish.

[BeElBeeBub]

Just more nonsense from you and Wiki....the separate governments/legal systems were the direct result of the AGREEMENT that was formalised by the associated parties.....and that agreement allowed 'devolved' issues to be governed by individual countries...and expanded by Bliar.....but the UK Parliament is sovereign on non-devolved issues....or at least will regain its' Parliamentary sovereignty  when Brexit is FINALLY achieved.
There is NO sensible requirement for ANY so called mutually beneficial trade agreement to require a POLITICAL regime....other than a formal Federation of States of course.

You've just cited and example of the sovereign UK parliament making an agreement with another to share sovereignty in certain defined areas.

So why were you so against the sovereign UK parliament making an agreement to share sovereignty with other parliament's in certain areas?

[Borg Refinery]

There was a point in WWII as I recall where Churchill was  going to go into union with France as well?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/536106/