Posts by Doctor Syntax

Perhaps you need to pay attention. It's likely to be shoehorned in within the next couple of years or so. Maybe sooner than that, who cares if it's too buggy for release? It's probably intended to introduce enough dependencies into regular prorams to make the likes of Devuan and Slackware finally impossible. It's going to be BSD or nothing.

Or there's just no signal.

Re: cheapo wired phone

"except on days like today"

Does anyone know of micro-hydroelectic generators to fit onto downpipes?

"everyone has a cheap wired phone handy at home in case of a power cut..."

Of course. It was the one that was there before we get the DECT. Not the DECT we have now, the long deceased one before that. It still works. In fact it rings before the DECT.

Re: Solved problem

All the way back in 2003...

"There is a danger in this that once this precedent has been set, that it will be cited for some other prorogation in future"

The judgement said it was a one-off. I think this translates as "nobody's been daft enough to try on this before and we don't think anyone will be daft enough in the future". I hope they're right.

Re: Surprising?

"Hopefully the EU will see sense and either give a deal that actually works (I dont see how)"

I don't see how a deal can actually work either. Not unless HMG actually intends to repudiate the Good Friday Agreement and that in turn would be a peculiar interpretation of "work".

Re: As the saying goes you get the government you deserve

If so the government's been repatriating them so they should all be able to turn up tomorrow.

Re: Regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

Anyone remember why Privy Council members are to be addressed as "Right Honourable"?

That was covered right at the start of Yes Minister. It's called getting rid of the difficult bit in the title.

Re: Regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

"Is this wrong ?"

Arguably yes, given that the referendum was by statute advisory.

Stupid certainly, rooted in the belief that the result would be Remain.

Re: Regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

Sadly I'm not sure that they are so aware. That's the problem.

Re: Regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

Upvoted for the "Not really"

But the Supreme Court is just the original Law Lords under a new name and with new premises. It's just a consequence of Blair thinking we should have something called a "Supreme Court". The whole HoL didn't hear cases, just the Law Lords and the members of the Supreme Court are just the latest holders of those posts.

It's rulings may be "unprecedented" unless they find an existing precedent to follow but that's the norm for courts dealing with appeals.

Re: Regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

"Because a future supreme court may extend their powers over parliament."

Have you read this far and learned nothing?

The whole point of the court's decision is to re-affirm the power of Parliament.

A cornerstone of the British constitution is the sovereignty of Parliament. The PM has attempted to override that. All the court has done is to give effect to what has been the status quo in the face of that attempt.

Had the court ruled otherwise they'd have enabled a future government to extend its powers over Parliament.

Re: Regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

"Normally, the inability for Parliament to act in this situation would result in an election has been the historical solution."

Elections have been known to give rise directly to the current situation*, namely a Parliament without an overall majority. In those circumstances an immediate further election is the last resort; normally there's an attempt to form a coalition or possibly a temporary government of national unity.

In the present circumstance May and BoJo have attempted to run down the clock to one of other Brexit that MPs as a whole either don't support for personal reasons or think is against the long term interests of the nation. That has produced a crisis situation in which case an election is untenable. The timing of it would present the incoming government with a dog's breakfast for the management of which he or she would be responsible.

* In fact the last election did just that. May only got a majority with the aid of DUP. The change since than is that what with MPs deciding to follow their consciences and what they considered to be the best interests of their country to change parties and BoJo chucking more out of "his" party, even that majority has gone.

"The courts are the wrong place to be doing this"

What was the "this" you had in mind?

If you were thinking about Brexit the court explicitly rules that out as being up for consideration:

1. It is important to emphasise that the issue in these appeals is not when and on

what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union.

Take a good look at that number. 1. It's the very first thing the court has to say in the judgement.

Re: Remain MPs all broke the law and should all be in prison anyway.

"David Cameron made it law that the Referendum would be a legally binding vote and that Parliament COULD NOT do anything to interfere with the result being carried through."

Just because you can find numpties to believe that an Farcebook and Twatter you shouldn't believe you can get away with bollocks like that here.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

"Yes, the Brexit rabblerousers are already spinning this as being the judiciary being against Brexit and other such b*llocks."

Actually, to his credit (and this must be the only time I've said such a thing) even Farage has said "The calling of a Queen's Speech and prorogation is the worst political decision ever."

"I think it's reasonable to expect the UK to have left the EU before the end of this Parliament.

Don't you?"

No. I think it's up to MPs to take an informed view of what's in the best long term interests of the country, including their constituents and do that, irrespective of what their constituents want at the time, especially in respect of something that might prove difficult to reverse. To follow a referendum that binds future generations should require a much larger majority than it got and it should be explicitly binding.

However I suspect that the only way to put this issue to bed will be to leave, discover the consequences, and get back in with the best terms then available (which will probably be less agreeable to most of us than those we have now). That might not be reasonable but it would at least end the arguments.

"British politicians were in fact part of the EU's governing bodies"

And the refuseniks who got themselves elected as MEPs weren't going to be much help in reforming anything except their own bank accounts.

"What if Boris and the other idiots run an election campaign with a mandate to shackle them?"

With the fixed term Parliament Act he can't have an election now without their permission.

OTOH Parliament can pass a vote of no confidence in him and agree to get behind someone else to avoid an election right now. There are enough grown-ups still in the room, especially those who BoJo expelled from the Conservatives, to provide such a person.

Re: IANL but...

"I'd be surprised if the Speaker can legally act on behalf of the Executive."

No but AFAIK he can act on behalf of Parliament. In fact, only on behalf of Parliament.

"I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me" was how one Speaker put it at another time when the sovereignty of Parliament was under attack.

"Which is why they didn't vote to overturn the prorogation"

Not within Parliament's power. They can vote on a recess but not on proroguing.

"or to have an election"

Which would have presented BoJo with a fait accompli on a no deal Brexit and, as an additional benefit to him, left someone else to deal with the consequences. Not even Corbyn was going to fall for that.

They had time for one thing within their power. They chose to ban no deal.

Probably about the only way to minimise it would be leave on the sparsest of no-deals. Then, once we've got back in, it would al be over apart from the recriminations against those who can't persuade the rest that they were really in favour of remain all along.

"Always struck me as an odd and unattractive option."

But probably the next best alternative to staying in.

"My point was simply that the MPs and the "political class" / "establishment" / whatever term you want to use are vastly more pro-EU than the electorate."

I'm not sure it's a matter of being pro-EU on a matter of principle but on informed consideration of the economic well-being of the country as a whole and being determined to do what's best for that well-being in the long term.

"And that in these specific circumstances that's helped create this log-jam."

Quite so.

I'd rather MPs didn't simply follow their constituencies but acted intelligently, considered the long term welfare of the nation and, if need be, make explanation and even give leadership to their constituencies.

@TRT

I'd add to you list of incompetencies a lack of ability, or perhaps knowledge of, such steps as impact assessments, feasibility studies and go/no go decisions in advance of proceeding with a major project.

Sadly that's been BAU for generations of British governments.

"A few years ago, the appeal would have been heard in the House of Lords, which would have been interesting."

Not really different. The name and venue might have changed. But these are just the current law lords who would otherwise have sat in the name of the HoL. A case going to the Lords wasn't dealt with by the whole House, just by the senior members of the judiciary.

"No-one knows what some bits of legislation mean in practice until they're tested in court."

I'm not sure it even goes that far in this case. It was simply a matter of BoJo thinking he could get away with it. Nothing very different to a young lad being caught scrumping but in this case it needed to go further up the legal food chain before he got the telling off he deserved.

Re: Surprising?

"the newish (less than 20 yo?) UK Supreme court "

Newish? It's just the continuation of the HoL sitting as a court. They now have their own building instead of having to put up in some room in Westminster Palace. Its legitimacy as a forum descends directly from the medieval royal court.

"Rarely a good thing to tell judges what they can and cannot do"

When a case goes to appeal the issue is usually a point of law and the role of counsel is to present arguments about what legal principles the lower courts should have applied. In this case one of the issues was about the rights of courts over a particular aspect of prerogative. It would be one where the court itself expected such arguments to be presented. It's a subtle difference between telling the court and presenting an argument. If you read the judgement it discusses areas of prerogative where the court can and can't intervene.

Re: Regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

"The courts have been granting themselves greater and greater political power."

Could you explain this in greater detail whilst allowing for the reality of this judgement: that it (a) excluded any consideration of the purpose of the advice to prorogue, of of the rights and wrongs of Brexit or of the party in government and (b) simply confirmed the sovereignty of Parliament which has been the cornerstone of the British constitution for several centuries.

Re: Regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

"or change the constitution itself (in other countries that do have a written one)."

This judgement is now part of our constitution.

Re: Regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

Are they Brits unaware of the constitional law of their country? Or foreign folk who haven't been briefed properly? Am I just a grumpy sod?

Probably all three but I'll keep you company on the last of them.

Re: Regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

The case before the court was that it was the PM overruling Parliament. So your "unelected judges" have prevented that "unelected PM" from doing that. In your, and presumably his, terms that's an outstandingly bad case to make to the people.

Re: Ignorantia juris non excusat

You really should treat the matter more seriously.

Brilliant. Have an upvote.

Re: Damning...

"Presumably Bojo will resign before he Parliament decides to hold him in the contempt which he deserves."

Should but not necessarily will. Parliament has a couple of options if he doesn't. On would be a vote of confidence, the other is to charge him with contempt of Parliament. In the latter case I wonder if that results of him being kicked out of his seat as well as out of No 10. Presumably Cummings would also be in their sights.

"Faecal Transplants?"

Just hope the waiter washes his hands thoroughly if you don't want one. And above all, hope he doesn't dry them on a towel someone else has used. (Long-ago bacteriology practical included dabbing the lab towel onto an agar plate.)