Discussion:
Boris will send the letter
Add Reply
tim...
2019-10-04 15:20:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Breaking news!

what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)

tim
nightjar
2019-10-04 15:35:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
Some suspect that submission to the Court of Session may simply be an
attempt to avoid the Court issuing an interdict that would allow
somebody else to write the letter on his behalf, if he doesn't actually
do it.
--
Colin Bignell
Yellow
2019-10-04 17:59:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by nightjar
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
Some suspect that submission to the Court of Session may simply be an
attempt to avoid the Court issuing an interdict that would allow
somebody else to write the letter on his behalf, if he doesn't actually
do it.
Does the law state the PM has to do it?

This case is after all about the very letter of the law (no pun in
tended) and the court surely has no business to be making new law when
Parliament has put a lot of effort in the wording of the one we have.

It even proscribes the exact wording the letter to the EU.
Mike Swift
2019-10-04 23:32:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by nightjar
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
Some suspect that submission to the Court of Session may simply be an
attempt to avoid the Court issuing an interdict that would allow
somebody else to write the letter on his behalf, if he doesn't actually
do it.
Does the law state the PM has to do it?
This case is after all about the very letter of the law (no pun in tended) and
the court surely has no business to be making new law when Parliament
has put a lot of effort in the wording of the one we have.
Indeed, write a letter to the E.U. along the lines of "I would like the
corrupt unelected bastards running the E.U. to give us an extension so
they can further punish us for wanting to leave their pathetically
fascist club", job done.

Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Norman Wells
2019-10-05 07:49:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by nightjar
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
Some suspect that submission to the Court of Session may simply be an
attempt to avoid the Court issuing an interdict that would allow
somebody else to write the letter on his behalf, if he doesn't actually
do it.
Does the law state the PM has to do it?
This case is after all about the very letter of the law (no pun in tended) and
the court surely has no business to be making new law when Parliament
has put a lot of effort in the wording of the one we have.
Indeed, write a letter to the E.U. along the lines of  "I would like the
corrupt unelected bastards running the E.U. to give us an extension so
they can further punish us for wanting to leave their pathetically
fascist club", job done.
Not exactly.

I suggest you read the Act.
nightjar
2019-10-05 08:58:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by nightjar
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
Some suspect that submission to the Court of Session may simply be an
attempt to avoid the Court issuing an interdict that would allow
somebody else to write the letter on his behalf, if he doesn't actually
do it.
Does the law state the PM has to do it?
Yes, which is why the action in the Court of Session. Unlike English
Courts, it has the power, if he ignores an interdict that requires him
to send the letter, to order it to be sent on his behalf and for that to
have the same effect as if he had signed it.
Post by Yellow
This case is after all about the very letter of the law (no pun in
tended) and the court surely has no business to be making new law when
Parliament has put a lot of effort in the wording of the one we have.
It would not be making new law. It would be ensuring that the existing
law is followed.
Post by Yellow
It even proscribes the exact wording the letter to the EU.
--
Colin Bignell
Yellow
2019-10-05 11:08:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by nightjar
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
Some suspect that submission to the Court of Session may simply be an
attempt to avoid the Court issuing an interdict that would allow
somebody else to write the letter on his behalf, if he doesn't actually
do it.
Does the law state the PM has to do it?
Yes, which is why the action in the Court of Session. Unlike English
Courts, it has the power, if he ignores an interdict that requires him
to send the letter, to order it to be sent on his behalf and for that to
have the same effect as if he had signed it.
Post by Yellow
This case is after all about the very letter of the law (no pun in
tended) and the court surely has no business to be making new law when
Parliament has put a lot of effort in the wording of the one we have.
It would not be making new law. It would be ensuring that the existing
law is followed.
They would be making new law if they ruled someone other than the PM
could send this letter given the Benn Bill is quite specific.
nightjar
2019-10-05 11:16:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by nightjar
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
Some suspect that submission to the Court of Session may simply be an
attempt to avoid the Court issuing an interdict that would allow
somebody else to write the letter on his behalf, if he doesn't actually
do it.
Does the law state the PM has to do it?
Yes, which is why the action in the Court of Session. Unlike English
Courts, it has the power, if he ignores an interdict that requires him
to send the letter, to order it to be sent on his behalf and for that to
have the same effect as if he had signed it.
Post by Yellow
This case is after all about the very letter of the law (no pun in
tended) and the court surely has no business to be making new law when
Parliament has put a lot of effort in the wording of the one we have.
It would not be making new law. It would be ensuring that the existing
law is followed.
They would be making new law if they ruled someone other than the PM
could send this letter given the Benn Bill is quite specific.
No, because the power of the Nobile Officium, which would allow the
Court of Session to send the letter on his behalf, is already part of
Scottish Law.
--
Colin Bignell
Yellow
2019-10-06 14:38:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by nightjar
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
Some suspect that submission to the Court of Session may simply be an
attempt to avoid the Court issuing an interdict that would allow
somebody else to write the letter on his behalf, if he doesn't actually
do it.
Does the law state the PM has to do it?
Yes, which is why the action in the Court of Session. Unlike English
Courts, it has the power, if he ignores an interdict that requires him
to send the letter, to order it to be sent on his behalf and for that to
have the same effect as if he had signed it.
Post by Yellow
This case is after all about the very letter of the law (no pun in
tended) and the court surely has no business to be making new law when
Parliament has put a lot of effort in the wording of the one we have.
It would not be making new law. It would be ensuring that the existing
law is followed.
They would be making new law if they ruled someone other than the PM
could send this letter given the Benn Bill is quite specific.
No, because the power of the Nobile Officium, which would allow the
Court of Session to send the letter on his behalf, is already part of
Scottish Law.
But they should wait until /after/ he has broken the law. My issue here
is with those who wish for the court to take away the requirement for
the PM to act /before/ he has failed to not act.
nightjar
2019-10-06 16:04:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by nightjar
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
Some suspect that submission to the Court of Session may simply be an
attempt to avoid the Court issuing an interdict that would allow
somebody else to write the letter on his behalf, if he doesn't actually
do it.
Does the law state the PM has to do it?
Yes, which is why the action in the Court of Session. Unlike English
Courts, it has the power, if he ignores an interdict that requires him
to send the letter, to order it to be sent on his behalf and for that to
have the same effect as if he had signed it.
Post by Yellow
This case is after all about the very letter of the law (no pun in
tended) and the court surely has no business to be making new law when
Parliament has put a lot of effort in the wording of the one we have.
It would not be making new law. It would be ensuring that the existing
law is followed.
They would be making new law if they ruled someone other than the PM
could send this letter given the Benn Bill is quite specific.
No, because the power of the Nobile Officium, which would allow the
Court of Session to send the letter on his behalf, is already part of
Scottish Law.
But they should wait until /after/ he has broken the law.
That isn't how an interdict, or the English equivalent an injunction,
works. It is a preventative measure, rather than a punitive one.
Post by Yellow
My issue here
is with those who wish for the court to take away the requirement for
the PM to act /before/ he has failed to not act.
It doesn't take away the requirement for him to act. However, it does
provide a remedy (and potentially a penalty for him) if he does not act.
--
Colin Bignell
MM
2019-10-06 15:48:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by nightjar
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
Some suspect that submission to the Court of Session may simply be an
attempt to avoid the Court issuing an interdict that would allow
somebody else to write the letter on his behalf, if he doesn't actually
do it.
There must be a contingency plan available off the shelf in case an
important signee is suddenly incapacitated.

MM
nightjar
2019-10-07 08:38:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by nightjar
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
Some suspect that submission to the Court of Session may simply be an
attempt to avoid the Court issuing an interdict that would allow
somebody else to write the letter on his behalf, if he doesn't actually
do it.
There must be a contingency plan available off the shelf in case an
important signee is suddenly incapacitated.
The Act specifically says the Prime Minister must send the letter, so
I'm not sure there is in this case, unless the PM is replaced by another.
--
Colin Bignell
MM
2019-10-07 09:01:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by nightjar
Post by MM
Post by nightjar
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
Some suspect that submission to the Court of Session may simply be an
attempt to avoid the Court issuing an interdict that would allow
somebody else to write the letter on his behalf, if he doesn't actually
do it.
There must be a contingency plan available off the shelf in case an
important signee is suddenly incapacitated.
The Act specifically says the Prime Minister must send the letter, so
I'm not sure there is in this case, unless the PM is replaced by another.
So what would happen if, say, the PM was not available, for any reason
whatsoever? Does the letter get sent by someone in lieu of the PM? By
the Court of Session? The clock will be ticking past midnight and no
letter! It's a bit like Chamberlain waiting for that note from Hitler.

MM
nightjar
2019-10-08 08:16:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by nightjar
Post by MM
Post by nightjar
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
Some suspect that submission to the Court of Session may simply be an
attempt to avoid the Court issuing an interdict that would allow
somebody else to write the letter on his behalf, if he doesn't actually
do it.
There must be a contingency plan available off the shelf in case an
important signee is suddenly incapacitated.
The Act specifically says the Prime Minister must send the letter, so
I'm not sure there is in this case, unless the PM is replaced by another.
So what would happen if, say, the PM was not available, for any reason
whatsoever? Does the letter get sent by someone in lieu of the PM? By
the Court of Session? The clock will be ticking past midnight and no
letter! It's a bit like Chamberlain waiting for that note from Hitler.
Not the Court of Session, since yesterday's decision. Otherwise, I have
no idea. Perhaps Boris' cunning plan is to be critically ill for the
last couple of weeks of October.
--
Colin Bignell
Mike Scott
2019-10-08 14:02:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 08/10/2019 09:16, nightjar wrote:
....
Post by nightjar
Not the Court of Session, since yesterday's decision. Otherwise, I have
no idea. Perhaps Boris' cunning plan is to be critically ill for the
last couple of weeks of October.
Another question.

The Scottish courts have the power of nobile officium. If a request is
rejected and appealed (as I think has happened), getting as far as the
Supreme Court, does that court somehow "inherit" that power in acting as
a supreme Scottish court? Or does the power vanish if/when the top
Scottish court decides not to act?
--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England
Yellow
2019-10-04 17:53:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
tim
He said he would "die in a ditch" rather than request an extension but
he also said he would not break the law so did he /actually/ ever say he
would not send the letter?
The Todal
2019-10-04 23:56:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
tim
He said he would "die in a ditch" rather than request an extension but
he also said he would not break the law so did he /actually/ ever say he
would not send the letter?
He did, yes, at the shambolic event where he addressed the police cadets.

I heard the recording on LBC today. But online I can only find a
paraphrase, eg

Asked if he could promise to the British public that he would not go to
Brussels and ask for another delay to Brexit, Johnson said: “Yes I can.
I’d rather be dead in a ditch.”
The Todal
2019-10-05 00:05:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
tim
He said he would "die in a ditch" rather than request an extension but
he also said he would not break the law so did he /actually/ ever say he
would not send the letter?
He did, yes, at the shambolic event where he addressed the police cadets.
I heard the recording on LBC today. But online I can only find a
paraphrase, eg
Asked if he could promise to the British public that he would not go to
Brussels and ask for another delay to Brexit, Johnson said: “Yes I can.
I’d rather be dead in a ditch.”


"Can you make a promise today to the British public that you will not go
back to Brussels and ask for another delay to Brexit?" "Yes. I can".

I suppose he could be pedantic and say that sending the letter does not
involve "going back to Brussels".
Yellow
2019-10-05 01:33:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
tim
He said he would "die in a ditch" rather than request an extension but
he also said he would not break the law so did he /actually/ ever say he
would not send the letter?
He did, yes, at the shambolic event where he addressed the police cadets.
I heard the recording on LBC today. But online I can only find a
paraphrase, eg
Asked if he could promise to the British public that he would not go to
Brussels and ask for another delay to Brexit, Johnson said: ?Yes I can.
I?d rather be dead in a ditch.?
http://youtu.be/__Kn-AOCd3I
"Can you make a promise today to the British public that you will not go
back to Brussels and ask for another delay to Brexit?" "Yes. I can".
I suppose he could be pedantic and say that sending the letter does not
involve "going back to Brussels".
He has either said he would not send the letter or he has not, and it
seems to me that if he has not (and I do not know if he has or not) then
those who are claiming he has are the only liars here.

But in any case - that clip is dated 5 September and the Benn Bill did
not receive Royal Assent until 9 September so however you choose to
interpret his words they were seeming said before there was a law in
place to compel him to request a extension.

Has he said anything similar since?

Be clear that I am not defending Boris here; I am just getting sick and
tired of the overuse of the word "liar". It seems to me too many are now
using it as a substitute for justifying their own actions and think the
public will be satisfied with "Boris is a liar" on repeat instead.
The Todal
2019-10-05 09:21:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
tim
He said he would "die in a ditch" rather than request an extension but
he also said he would not break the law so did he /actually/ ever say he
would not send the letter?
He did, yes, at the shambolic event where he addressed the police cadets.
I heard the recording on LBC today. But online I can only find a
paraphrase, eg
Asked if he could promise to the British public that he would not go to
Brussels and ask for another delay to Brexit, Johnson said: ?Yes I can.
I?d rather be dead in a ditch.?
http://youtu.be/__Kn-AOCd3I
"Can you make a promise today to the British public that you will not go
back to Brussels and ask for another delay to Brexit?" "Yes. I can".
I suppose he could be pedantic and say that sending the letter does not
involve "going back to Brussels".
He has either said he would not send the letter or he has not, and it
seems to me that if he has not (and I do not know if he has or not) then
those who are claiming he has are the only liars here.
But in any case - that clip is dated 5 September and the Benn Bill did
not receive Royal Assent until 9 September so however you choose to
interpret his words they were seeming said before there was a law in
place to compel him to request a extension.
That argument is patently ridiculous. Was he clinging to the hope that
the Queen would refuse Royal Assent?

He knew what Parliament had commanded him to do, and he was telling his
captive audience that he was promising that he wouldn't do it.
Post by Yellow
Has he said anything similar since?
Be clear that I am not defending Boris here; I am just getting sick and
tired of the overuse of the word "liar". It seems to me too many are now
using it as a substitute for justifying their own actions and think the
public will be satisfied with "Boris is a liar" on repeat instead.
But Boris has a long track record of lying. He was proud of making up
false stories about the alleged scandals in the EU.

Here's a list of some of his lies.

https://insider.labour.org.uk/factcheck/100-days-boris-johnson-lying/
Yellow
2019-10-05 11:45:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
tim
He said he would "die in a ditch" rather than request an extension but
he also said he would not break the law so did he /actually/ ever say he
would not send the letter?
He did, yes, at the shambolic event where he addressed the police cadets.
I heard the recording on LBC today. But online I can only find a
paraphrase, eg
Asked if he could promise to the British public that he would not go to
Brussels and ask for another delay to Brexit, Johnson said: ?Yes I can.
I?d rather be dead in a ditch.?
http://youtu.be/__Kn-AOCd3I
"Can you make a promise today to the British public that you will not go
back to Brussels and ask for another delay to Brexit?" "Yes. I can".
I suppose he could be pedantic and say that sending the letter does not
involve "going back to Brussels".
He has either said he would not send the letter or he has not, and it
seems to me that if he has not (and I do not know if he has or not) then
those who are claiming he has are the only liars here.
But in any case - that clip is dated 5 September and the Benn Bill did
not receive Royal Assent until 9 September so however you choose to
interpret his words they were seeming said before there was a law in
place to compel him to request a extension.
That argument is patently ridiculous. Was he clinging to the hope that
the Queen would refuse Royal Assent?
I have no idea why he is chose to say what he did or when he chose to
say it but that does not change the facts that a) he does not seem to
have ever said he would not send this letter and b) the comments that
are being to used against him to give the impression he did were made
before the Benn Bill became law.
Post by The Todal
He knew what Parliament had commanded him to do, and he was telling his
captive audience that he was promising that he wouldn't do it.
I believe he said he would rather die in a ditch than request an
extension.
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Has he said anything similar since?
Be clear that I am not defending Boris here; I am just getting sick and
tired of the overuse of the word "liar". It seems to me too many are now
using it as a substitute for justifying their own actions and think the
public will be satisfied with "Boris is a liar" on repeat instead.
But Boris has a long track record of lying. He was proud of making up
false stories about the alleged scandals in the EU.
Here's a list of some of his lies.
https://insider.labour.org.uk/factcheck/100-days-boris-johnson-lying/
As does /every/ politician, including your mate Corbyn, but what you do
not seem to be able to see is that telling lies about Boris's because
"he has told lies before" is lying and a deliberate attempt to mislead
the public.

But never mind that - my concern is that both Labour and the Lib Dems
are using this as a tactic to avoid scrutiny of their behaviour and that
is my problem with all this.
R. Mark Clayton
2019-10-05 11:53:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
SNIP
Post by Yellow
I believe he said he would rather die in a ditch than request an
extension.
Boris has said a lot of things, but I think a sexton could be arranged.
Post by Yellow
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Has he said anything similar since?
Be clear that I am not defending Boris here; I am just getting sick and
tired of the overuse of the word "liar". It seems to me too many are now
using it as a substitute for justifying their own actions and think the
public will be satisfied with "Boris is a liar" on repeat instead.
But Boris has a long track record of lying. He was proud of making up
false stories about the alleged scandals in the EU.
Here's a list of some of his lies.
https://insider.labour.org.uk/factcheck/100-days-boris-johnson-lying/
As does /every/ politician, including your mate Corbyn, but what you do
not seem to be able to see is that telling lies about Boris's because
"he has told lies before" is lying and a deliberate attempt to mislead
the public.
Well it used to be that the past record of a defendant could not be brought up in court unless the defendant made an issue of it.

Anyway Boris has loads of form for this, although in this case I suspect he will change his mind and neither die nor defend to the last ditch.
Post by Yellow
But never mind that - my concern is that both Labour and the Lib Dems
are using this as a tactic to avoid scrutiny of their behaviour and that
is my problem with all this.
What behaviour?

Mostly they are saying that they just can't trust Boris - who can?

For balance the Lib Dems are saying they can't trust Jeremy, nor indeed can half his back benchers.
The Todal
2019-10-05 21:58:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Breaking news!
what a twat (for saying that he wouldn't)
tim
He said he would "die in a ditch" rather than request an extension but
he also said he would not break the law so did he /actually/ ever say he
would not send the letter?
He did, yes, at the shambolic event where he addressed the police cadets.
I heard the recording on LBC today. But online I can only find a
paraphrase, eg
Asked if he could promise to the British public that he would not go to
Brussels and ask for another delay to Brexit, Johnson said: ?Yes I can.
I?d rather be dead in a ditch.?
http://youtu.be/__Kn-AOCd3I
"Can you make a promise today to the British public that you will not go
back to Brussels and ask for another delay to Brexit?" "Yes. I can".
I suppose he could be pedantic and say that sending the letter does not
involve "going back to Brussels".
He has either said he would not send the letter or he has not, and it
seems to me that if he has not (and I do not know if he has or not) then
those who are claiming he has are the only liars here.
But in any case - that clip is dated 5 September and the Benn Bill did
not receive Royal Assent until 9 September so however you choose to
interpret his words they were seeming said before there was a law in
place to compel him to request a extension.
That argument is patently ridiculous. Was he clinging to the hope that
the Queen would refuse Royal Assent?
I have no idea why he is chose to say what he did or when he chose to
say it but that does not change the facts that a) he does not seem to
have ever said he would not send this letter and b) the comments that
are being to used against him to give the impression he did were made
before the Benn Bill became law.
Post by The Todal
He knew what Parliament had commanded him to do, and he was telling his
captive audience that he was promising that he wouldn't do it.
I believe he said he would rather die in a ditch than request an
extension.
You, and many others, keep quoting the "die in a ditch" phrase, knowing
that it is just a meaningless rhetorical flourish. Because unfortunately
Boris hasn't promised to die in a ditch any time soon.

You keep ignoring the words I quoted. "Can you make a promise today to
the British public that you will not go back to Brussels and ask for
another delay to Brexit?" "Yes. I can".

That's a promise not to ask Brussels for an extension. That is therefore
a promise not to write a letter.

Now, see how easy that was?

Someone, probably his best chum Dominic, has probably told Boris that
the way forward is to keep promising to deliver Brexit on time and
you'll be forgiven for failing if you never waver in your conviction
that you will deliver Brexit on time. It must be from some sort of
salesman's training manual.
Altroy1
2019-10-06 11:26:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[..]
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
I believe he said he would rather die in a ditch than request an
extension.
You, and many others, keep quoting the "die in a ditch" phrase, knowing
that it is just a meaningless rhetorical flourish. Because unfortunately
Boris hasn't promised to die in a ditch any time soon.
You keep ignoring the words I quoted. "Can you make a promise today to
the British public that you will not go back to Brussels and ask for
another delay to Brexit?" "Yes. I can".
That's a promise not to ask Brussels for an extension. That is therefore
a promise not to write a letter.
Now, see how easy that was?
Not so easy.

The problem is with the word can. "can" is more a statement of capability.

For example, I were to state "I can lift 100kg in weight". I am stating that I
am capable of lifting that weight, not that I necessarily *will* lift that weight.

The question/answer should (to be more watertight) have been:

Q: "/Will/ you make a promise today to the British public that you will not go
back to Brussels and ask for another delay to Brexit?"

A: Yes. I will.

So, Boris "can" make a promise not to ask Brussels for an extension. That may
not mean Boris will make a promise not to ask for such extension. Likewise
Boris "can" lie in front of some bulldozers to stop a third runway. Doesnt mean
he /will/ lie down in front of those bulldozers.
Loading...