Boris Boris
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: Boris

  1. #1

    More fingers than teeth

    minestrone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    16,337

    Default 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. #2

    More fingers than teeth

    minestrone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    16,337

    Default

    "but without his signature"

    Hero level.

  3. #3

    Godlike

    Paddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    9,829

    Default

    Quote 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.
    Quote 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; 19th October 2019 at 22:05.
    Brexiteers remind me of religious fanatics, only faith, no facts.

  4. #4

    More fingers than teeth

    minestrone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    16,337

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #5

    More fingers than teeth

    minestrone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    16,337

    Default

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

  6. #6

    More fingers than teeth

    minestrone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    16,337

    Default

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

  7. #7

    I live on CUK

    Old Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Tombliboo Bush
    Posts
    22,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bean
    I admit that I'm a lazy lying cretin, but so what?
    25 June 2018

  8. #8

    More fingers than teeth

    minestrone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    16,337

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Greg View Post
    The withered vine...

  9. #9

    Respect my authoritah!

    NotAllThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Far away from HMRC
    Posts
    21,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minestrone View Post
    The withered vine...
    Projecting again?
    Boomers tend to believe in “freedom of speech”, which is a fascist concept used to spread hateful ideas.Given that hate speech is not possible without free speech, any defence of free speech is a form of hate speech. - Titania McGrath

  10. #10

    Godlike

    Mordac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Civilisation-ish
    Posts
    9,019

    Default

    Quote 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...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •