| Boris sending the letter but not signing it 22:19 - Oct 19 with 9452 views | ElderGrizzly |
He is a pathetic little man child. And stupid too, as plenty of QCs have said he has broken the law.
Back in court Monday
|  | | |  |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 11:54 - Oct 20 with 2144 views | No9 |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 23:23 - Oct 19 by sparks |
There is no way that someone who shows such disdain for process and law should ever hold any office in this country.
Anyone supporting this dishonest, void of integrity, charlatan has not a shred of decency or patriotism within them.
Id like to think that there is not a twtdr who would disagree. |
I agree entirely
What does it say about the party that put him in this position?
How can the tories now call themselves the 'Conservative & Unionist' party? |  | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 18:02 - Oct 20 with 2102 views | Superfrans |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 08:26 - Oct 20 by hampstead_blue |
Well said Sir.
If only parlianment would grow up, both sides, and get on with Brexit and stop trying to deny democracy. |
This is “getting on with Brexit”.
You’ve had two different Governments trying to work out what is the best deal, both have struggled to find a deal that Parliament can agree to. Anyone who believes there isn’t enough support for a decent leave deal within Parliament is kidding themselves. Both main parties are led by leavers.
Problem is that the type of deal was never defined before the referendum, so there is a fundamental disagreement now what form of leave deal should be accepted. As someone else Tweeted earlier, in the referendum we were asked to choose between one very definable option and the other which wasn’t - essentially like asking at a General Election to vote either for the current MP or someone else. We have spent three years trying to work out who the “someone else” else.
But even if we did leave without a deal on October 31, Brexit wouldn’t be “over”. Even under BJ’s deal, it wouldn’t be “over” - we would have just over 12 months to strike our new trade deal with Europe - and potentially an extension on that if we failed to get everything agreed by then.
This is “getting on with Brexit”. We will be continuing to “get on with Brexit” for many years to come.
Edit: just seen this tweet which makes the same point.,.
[Post edited 20 Oct 2019 18:18]
|  |
| |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 18:38 - Oct 20 with 2083 views | Oxford_Blue |
The most senior government lawyer (the Attorney General) advised Johnson that what he did wasn’t unlawful under the constitution and I’ve heard a number of senior judges (Lord Sumption for example) agree. So it’s not as clear cut as you say. | | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 18:41 - Oct 20 with 2078 views | jeera |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 18:38 - Oct 20 by Oxford_Blue |
The most senior government lawyer (the Attorney General) advised Johnson that what he did wasn’t unlawful under the constitution and I’ve heard a number of senior judges (Lord Sumption for example) agree. So it’s not as clear cut as you say. |
Still underhanded nonsense though. |  |
| |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:30 - Oct 20 with 2057 views | Superfrans |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 18:38 - Oct 20 by Oxford_Blue |
The most senior government lawyer (the Attorney General) advised Johnson that what he did wasn’t unlawful under the constitution and I’ve heard a number of senior judges (Lord Sumption for example) agree. So it’s not as clear cut as you say. |
Is that the same attorney general who advised that BJ’s prorogation of parliament was also legal?
That went well. | |
| |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:35 - Oct 20 with 2053 views | m14_blue |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 18:38 - Oct 20 by Oxford_Blue |
The most senior government lawyer (the Attorney General) advised Johnson that what he did wasn’t unlawful under the constitution and I’ve heard a number of senior judges (Lord Sumption for example) agree. So it’s not as clear cut as you say. |
Apologies: ignore, hadn't understood properly. [Post edited 20 Oct 2019 19:38]
| | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:39 - Oct 20 with 2048 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:35 - Oct 20 by m14_blue |
Apologies: ignore, hadn't understood properly. [Post edited 20 Oct 2019 19:38]
|
No. But that wasn’t the point.
The point was whether Johnson was “stupid” for taking a decision that it was claimed by the OP was obviously flawed.
I’m just pointing out that he took the decision based on advice from a very senior lawyer and that judicial and legal opinion is also split. It’s not surprising given that these issues are novel and go to the heart of our constitution. | | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:39 - Oct 20 with 2048 views | Herbivore |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 18:38 - Oct 20 by Oxford_Blue |
The most senior government lawyer (the Attorney General) advised Johnson that what he did wasn’t unlawful under the constitution and I’ve heard a number of senior judges (Lord Sumption for example) agree. So it’s not as clear cut as you say. |
The Attorney General advised him it was lawful to prorogue parliament. You may as well ask a white van man for legal advice. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:40 - Oct 20 with 2042 views | m14_blue |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:39 - Oct 20 by Oxford_Blue |
No. But that wasn’t the point.
The point was whether Johnson was “stupid” for taking a decision that it was claimed by the OP was obviously flawed.
I’m just pointing out that he took the decision based on advice from a very senior lawyer and that judicial and legal opinion is also split. It’s not surprising given that these issues are novel and go to the heart of our constitution. |
Yes sorry, my bad. | | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:40 - Oct 20 with 2040 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 18:41 - Oct 20 by jeera |
Still underhanded nonsense though. |
Why is it underhand if it was based on legal advice that told him it wasn’t underhanded? | | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:41 - Oct 20 with 2038 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:40 - Oct 20 by m14_blue |
Yes sorry, my bad. |
Sorry - hadn’t seen your previous post | | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:43 - Oct 20 with 2035 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:39 - Oct 20 by Herbivore |
The Attorney General advised him it was lawful to prorogue parliament. You may as well ask a white van man for legal advice. |
What do you mean?
That the AG isn’t legally qualified or experienced? Well, that’s a difficult allegation to make given his CV.
Or do you mean that the AG was pressurised to give that view? If so, where is your evidence for that? And it was the AG that also scuppered the May deal revision on the backstop. I bet you weren’t criticising him then. | | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:48 - Oct 20 with 2030 views | Herbivore |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:43 - Oct 20 by Oxford_Blue |
What do you mean?
That the AG isn’t legally qualified or experienced? Well, that’s a difficult allegation to make given his CV.
Or do you mean that the AG was pressurised to give that view? If so, where is your evidence for that? And it was the AG that also scuppered the May deal revision on the backstop. I bet you weren’t criticising him then. |
What I mean is we have very recent evidence of him offering unsound legal advice. Whether that was due to a lack of competence or political pressure would be a matter of speculation. | |
| |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:51 - Oct 20 with 2028 views | Pecker |
Just want Brexit done. Bored titless of it for ages now. Leave or don't leave, really don't care anymore. |  | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 20:53 - Oct 20 with 2001 views | No9 |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 08:26 - Oct 20 by hampstead_blue |
Well said Sir.
If only parlianment would grow up, both sides, and get on with Brexit and stop trying to deny democracy. |
Democracy (parliamentary) is in action, what the tories have wanted since the referendum is a one party state (dictatorship) they have donw every possible thign to usurp parliament.
The current PM can't operate in a democracy = spoiled rich kid spitting out the dummy | | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 21:18 - Oct 20 with 1980 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:48 - Oct 20 by Herbivore |
What I mean is we have very recent evidence of him offering unsound legal advice. Whether that was due to a lack of competence or political pressure would be a matter of speculation. |
I don’t agree on that.
This isn’t a black and white issue, in terms of analysing the issues before the court has determined a view. In fact, many legal issues that are determined by the court aren’t clear cut. If they were, there wouldn’t be a dispute.
These legal issues are complex and in the case of the constitution, there is very little if any precedent to go on. As we have nothing in writing, lawyers have to piece together the position based on previous cases and authorities and choose which ones to give weight to.
Lord Sumption for example said he thought the AG was right.
In any event, my point still stands because at the time the AG gave his advice to the PM, it hadn’t been subjected to the Supreme Court’s analysis and so, as I said above, I don’t agree that the PM was “stupid” to follow the advice of the most senior lawyer in the government. [Post edited 20 Oct 2019 21:20]
| | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 07:45 - Oct 21 with 1931 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 21:18 - Oct 20 by Oxford_Blue |
I don’t agree on that.
This isn’t a black and white issue, in terms of analysing the issues before the court has determined a view. In fact, many legal issues that are determined by the court aren’t clear cut. If they were, there wouldn’t be a dispute.
These legal issues are complex and in the case of the constitution, there is very little if any precedent to go on. As we have nothing in writing, lawyers have to piece together the position based on previous cases and authorities and choose which ones to give weight to.
Lord Sumption for example said he thought the AG was right.
In any event, my point still stands because at the time the AG gave his advice to the PM, it hadn’t been subjected to the Supreme Court’s analysis and so, as I said above, I don’t agree that the PM was “stupid” to follow the advice of the most senior lawyer in the government. [Post edited 20 Oct 2019 21:20]
|
The ERG now want a law passed to stop Brits abroad interfering in Brexit, with potential jail for those that do.
I mean, who would want foreign influences in our politics....*cough Arron Banks* | | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 07:58 - Oct 21 with 1921 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 07:45 - Oct 21 by ElderGrizzly |
The ERG now want a law passed to stop Brits abroad interfering in Brexit, with potential jail for those that do.
I mean, who would want foreign influences in our politics....*cough Arron Banks* |
Ok.
Struggling to see how that is relevant to my post about the attorney general and Boris Johnson. | | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 07:59 - Oct 21 with 1921 views | Herbivore |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 21:18 - Oct 20 by Oxford_Blue |
I don’t agree on that.
This isn’t a black and white issue, in terms of analysing the issues before the court has determined a view. In fact, many legal issues that are determined by the court aren’t clear cut. If they were, there wouldn’t be a dispute.
These legal issues are complex and in the case of the constitution, there is very little if any precedent to go on. As we have nothing in writing, lawyers have to piece together the position based on previous cases and authorities and choose which ones to give weight to.
Lord Sumption for example said he thought the AG was right.
In any event, my point still stands because at the time the AG gave his advice to the PM, it hadn’t been subjected to the Supreme Court’s analysis and so, as I said above, I don’t agree that the PM was “stupid” to follow the advice of the most senior lawyer in the government. [Post edited 20 Oct 2019 21:20]
|
A unanimous decision by the the supreme court judges suggests they felt it was pretty clear cut. In fact they pretty much said as much in their judgement. Personally I'd be somewhat wary of taking legal advice on a similarly controversial issue from someone that got it so spectacularly wrong so recently. [Post edited 21 Oct 2019 8:29]
| |
| |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 08:08 - Oct 21 with 1907 views | DanTheMan |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 19:51 - Oct 20 by Pecker |
Just want Brexit done. Bored titless of it for ages now. Leave or don't leave, really don't care anymore. |
It's not a form of entertainment, rushing it because people are "bored" is, frankly, fooking mental.
And if you think this is bad, wait for the next few decades of trade agreements. It'll make this look like a minor argument in comparison. |  |
| |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 09:27 - Oct 21 with 1879 views | IPS_wich |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 08:08 - Oct 21 by DanTheMan |
It's not a form of entertainment, rushing it because people are "bored" is, frankly, fooking mental.
And if you think this is bad, wait for the next few decades of trade agreements. It'll make this look like a minor argument in comparison. |
The big difference being that those of us who give a stuff about trade agreements generally voted to remain and will spend the next few years in existential crisis as we try to navigate the economic stupidity of brexit.
Those who are motivated on the single issue of leaving the EU will just spend the next few years in eternal smugness that we got one over johnny foreigner and infatuated with their blue passports...doubt they'll give two hoots about trade agreements. | | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 10:22 - Oct 21 with 1828 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 07:59 - Oct 21 by Herbivore |
A unanimous decision by the the supreme court judges suggests they felt it was pretty clear cut. In fact they pretty much said as much in their judgement. Personally I'd be somewhat wary of taking legal advice on a similarly controversial issue from someone that got it so spectacularly wrong so recently. [Post edited 21 Oct 2019 8:29]
|
I’m not sure you’re fully understanding. There isn’t a black and white analysis - if there was then cases wouldn’t go to court because the party with the bad case would settle it or wouldn’t even bring it. The point is that judges decide on the balance of probabilities (in civil law) and there is weighting to evidence, witnesses, documents, precedent cases which is not binary. Lawyers seek to identify the strength of a position and advise their clients. The fact that one party loses at trial (which has to happen) doesn’t mean that the advice given to the losing side was utterly flawed.
This is particularly the case in relation to constitutional law and particularly so where other senior judges agreed with the AG. We haven’t seen the advice so it’s hard to take more of a thorough view. But the PM is entitled to rely on his own senior legal advisor. Perhaps the advice was that it was not clear cut and it was arguable either way.
In any event, the issue is whether the PM was stupid to rely on it. He relied on it before the Supreme Court had opined. Also, there is an argument that the Supreme Court have engages in judicial activism. | | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 10:38 - Oct 21 with 1809 views | Herbivore |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 10:22 - Oct 21 by Oxford_Blue |
I’m not sure you’re fully understanding. There isn’t a black and white analysis - if there was then cases wouldn’t go to court because the party with the bad case would settle it or wouldn’t even bring it. The point is that judges decide on the balance of probabilities (in civil law) and there is weighting to evidence, witnesses, documents, precedent cases which is not binary. Lawyers seek to identify the strength of a position and advise their clients. The fact that one party loses at trial (which has to happen) doesn’t mean that the advice given to the losing side was utterly flawed.
This is particularly the case in relation to constitutional law and particularly so where other senior judges agreed with the AG. We haven’t seen the advice so it’s hard to take more of a thorough view. But the PM is entitled to rely on his own senior legal advisor. Perhaps the advice was that it was not clear cut and it was arguable either way.
In any event, the issue is whether the PM was stupid to rely on it. He relied on it before the Supreme Court had opined. Also, there is an argument that the Supreme Court have engages in judicial activism. |
Ah so it's the supreme court's fault that this government doesn't see much of a need to behave lawfully. Gotcha. Think you've shown your true colours there. | |
| |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 11:22 - Oct 21 with 1772 views | No9 |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 10:22 - Oct 21 by Oxford_Blue |
I’m not sure you’re fully understanding. There isn’t a black and white analysis - if there was then cases wouldn’t go to court because the party with the bad case would settle it or wouldn’t even bring it. The point is that judges decide on the balance of probabilities (in civil law) and there is weighting to evidence, witnesses, documents, precedent cases which is not binary. Lawyers seek to identify the strength of a position and advise their clients. The fact that one party loses at trial (which has to happen) doesn’t mean that the advice given to the losing side was utterly flawed.
This is particularly the case in relation to constitutional law and particularly so where other senior judges agreed with the AG. We haven’t seen the advice so it’s hard to take more of a thorough view. But the PM is entitled to rely on his own senior legal advisor. Perhaps the advice was that it was not clear cut and it was arguable either way.
In any event, the issue is whether the PM was stupid to rely on it. He relied on it before the Supreme Court had opined. Also, there is an argument that the Supreme Court have engages in judicial activism. |
2 points-
Civil Law is the legal system in the EU, the UK system is common law.
There is no written constitution so the legal advice is questionable until any court makes a precedent
the advice given to Mr Johnson is now wrong but he is unlikely to sue or sack his legal advisors
The Supreme Court will judge on the evidence out before them won't they? | | | |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 11:51 - Oct 21 with 1743 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Boris sending the letter but not signing it on 11:22 - Oct 21 by No9 |
2 points-
Civil Law is the legal system in the EU, the UK system is common law.
There is no written constitution so the legal advice is questionable until any court makes a precedent
the advice given to Mr Johnson is now wrong but he is unlikely to sue or sack his legal advisors
The Supreme Court will judge on the evidence out before them won't they? |
Sorry - you’re not right.
Most EU countries have the civil code (eg France).
In this country there is a basic distinction between civil law (two individuals having a dispute) and criminal law (the state prosecuting an individual). . There is also public law which, technically, is separate.
Common law is used generically to mean case/judge made law and includes both criminal and civil areas. But statue law also applies as well as common law to both civil and criminal actions. It’s not right to say that civil law is only a European term. I think you mean the civil code. The rules applicable to civil disputes are called the “civil procedure rules”.
Lecture over. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
