• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Boris

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Boris

    The only Prime Ministers in my living memory to be able to deal with that in the commons were Thatcher and Blair.

    We have been hearing for months he's a fat buffoon not worthy of this position, expensively educated above his intelligence.

    He is going to be PM for a decade.

    #2
    "but without his signature"

    Hero level.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by minestrone View Post
      The only Prime Ministers in my living memory to be able to deal with that in the commons were Thatcher and Blair.

      We have been hearing for months he's a fat buffoon not worthy of this position, expensively educated above his intelligence.

      He is going to be PM for a decade.
      Originally posted by minestrone View Post
      "but without his signature"

      Hero level.
      No. Borris is a twat and he has broken the law by not signing the letter and sending a virtual retraction.

      There is a precedent regarding the performance of law and the purpose of the law in that respect.

      Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968]

      Brexit, Padfield, and the Benn Act – The Law and Policy Blog

      One welcome feature of this week’s Supreme Court decision on the prorogation issue was that it was openly and unapologetically a “constitutional” judgment.

      It proudly wore its constitutional significance like a judicial robe, or like a brooch.

      This is not the case of previous constitutional cases.

      Take the 1968 House of Lords case of Padfield, for instance.

      You can read Padfield without realising its constitutional significance (and many first year law students do).

      But as interpreted and applied in subsequent cases, the Padfield principle is a fundamental rule of the UK constitution.

      Put simply: it is not open to a Minister to do a thing (or not do a thing) that would circumvent or frustrate an Act of Parliament.

      And this makes sense: there would be no point in having Acts of Parliament if ministers could casually sidestep the legislation.

      *

      So, in the context of Brexit, where there is now the Benn Act obliging the Prime Minister to seek an extension of the Article 50 period so as to avoid a No Deal Brexit, this principle means:

      a minister cannot send a side letter to the European Union saying that the UK does not really want an extension and asking EU to reject the application
      the government cannot use delegated or secondary legislation (or Orders in/of Council) to rob the Benn Act of effect
      And so on.

      The response to each of these clever ideas is simple: Padfield.

      Unless the government source behind such wheezes explains how the Padfield principle can also be sidestepped then it is just legal illiteracy and amateur lawyering.

      These suggestions would not even cause any delay, to “run down the clock”: the law is so basic here that the High Court would not need more than a few hours before granting a remedy preventing such unlawful behaviour.

      It may be that the real intention with these suggestions is to get the courts to intervene because it “plays well” politically.

      But such infantile tomfoolery is not a good reason for the law not to be upheld.

      All because someone wants to break the law to show off to others, it is not a reason for the law to not be applied.
      Last edited by Paddy; 19 October 2019, 22:05.
      "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Paddy View Post
        No. Borris is a twat and he has broken the law by not signing the letter and sending a virtual retraction.

        There is a precedent regarding the performance of law and the purpose of the law in that respect.

        Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
        [1968]
        I bet you were quite the catch in your youth.

        Comment


          #5
          It's the dull ****ers in IT that perpetuate the myth that really...

          Comment


            #6
            Hold on, Mr Exciting is now editing his posts with blogs we are not going to read.

            Comment


              #7

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
                The withered vine...

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by minestrone View Post
                  The withered vine...
                  Projecting again?
                  Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by minestrone View Post
                    The only Prime Ministers in my living memory to be able to deal with that in the commons were Thatcher and Blair.

                    We have been hearing for months he's a fat buffoon not worthy of this position, expensively educated above his intelligence.

                    He is going to be PM for a decade.
                    He's going to be PM until Labour think they can win a GE. So a decade might be a bit of an underestimate...

                    His heart is in the right place - shame we can't say the same about his brain...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X