Zompist Bboard Again

I'd been meaning to mention for a while, but something else always distracted me: there's been an interesting story gradually brewing here regarding feminist ideological cleavages (the discussion of Lucas' "women are inherently better at being nice" thing was what reminded me of this, as it follows similar lines).

So, a lot of feminist pressure groups are very opposed to sex work (Scotland's even come close to banning pornography entirely a few times now as a result). This includes strip clubs, where, in addition to the disgusting women showing their filthy immoral bodies to people in general, feminists have had a particualar bugbear with the idea that some strippers may secretly be working as prostitutes on the side, and Must Be Stopped. Sorry, 'saved'.

Fair enough. But a few months ago, one of these groups finally decided to do something about this, and infiltrated a number of strip clubs, and secretly filmed the dancers, and paid for private dances, and filmed them, and in some cases successfully induced some of the dancers to act in Various Immoral Ways with the undercover feminists in exchange for money (there are geneally no-touching rules, but they managed to film some of the dancers being persuaded to touch them, and even suggest other services for payment).

The activists then proudly publicised all this as clear proof of the immorality and possible illegality of strip clubs, for allowing women to do such degrading things...

...and now a group of the dancers concerned has responded to the activists' noble crusade to liberate the dancers... by suing them. Apparently, they argue, and to be fair they're relying on some arcane points of law here that it's totally unfair to expect the activists to have anticipated, but apparently taking covert videos and pictures of naked women without their permission or knowledge and sharing them around the office so that everyone can see how naked and exploited the women are, might, apparently, be kind of fucking illegal. I mean, it's just a theory so far, it's not yet been tested in court.

So anyway, we've yet to see what will happen exactly, but in addition to being a fascinating reminder that views on these issues are not clear-cut and unanimous, it's a wonderful example of how seemingly intelligent people can, with plenty of time to prepare, end up doing things in seemingly complete obliviousness to the gaping flaws (practical, and in this case moral and legal) in their plan...


-----------

Speaking of which, Brexit. Tough negotiating postures from Boris. He's issued the US an ultimatum: if they don't back down and compromise, they won't be permitted to have a trade deal with us after Brexit. No, not even if they beg us!

...meanwhile, on the same day, we announced that we're planning to renege on our debts from our last trade deal, which I'm sure will bring the punters just crawling...



He's also taking legal advice on suspending Parliament.

I wonder what parties and political bases sex-positive feminists align with then in the UK

Ah yes, the "imprison sex workers for their own good" crowd.

University College London points out that the 73 billion pound data center market in the UK is currently governed under EU law, and unlike material goods, data can't just hang around in legal limbo while the longshoremen and customs officials pretend that the laws haven't changed. Disruption to this industry is likely to be immediate after October 31.

Nice to see JEZZA!!! for once (1) showing something resembling a backbone and (2) acknowledging that not everyone necessarily wants him as PM.

I wonder what the calibre is of the minions that nice Mr. Farage wants to take over the country with. Somehow I suspect they're not of the same high quality as our current Members of Parliament, which could be a problem. Could they cope?

*rolls eyes*

The parties have agreed... what was the expressed they used earlier today? They've agreed to work hard to work together toward discussing paths forward, or something to that effect. So that's that problem fixed, then!

So far as I can see, Corbyn still isn't letting anyone else be PM. And the alternative 'legislative method' seems like a waste of time - not only will it be hard to do, but passing a law saying that Boris Johnson has to try to negotiate a deal with the EU is pointless, since Johnson says that's what he's doing already. Parliament can't pass legislation to force the EU to offer a deal that Parliament will accept, and Parliament still has no idea in the slightest what deal it WOULD accept (remember, all these MPs voting to block no deal are the same MPs who voted against the deal that the EU are actually offering).

This reads like the "don't blame us when it goes wrong, we said we didn't want this to happen" strategy.

Well, it's all irrelevant now that Boris is going to suspend Parliament.

alice wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:46 am Well, it's all irrelevant now that Boris is going to suspend Parliament.

The move seems to almost guarantee an election after Brexit day, which I assume is what Boris wants. It's almost certainly the final straw for some of the Tory BoJo haters, and it's hard to see how Corbyn doesn't call for a vote of no confidence.

If he's smart, he'll call it after the prorogation, not before, with the excuse that the time before prorogation is for Brexit blocking legislation. I don't think there's any realistic way to remove and replace Boris before Brexit apart from backing Corbyn, which is unlikely, and that being the case he should make sure that any election is a couple of months post-Brexit to give time for all the problems to become more obvious. If he calls it now, an election can happen within days of Brexit and the government may be able to keep the worst under control for that short timescale.

Then there's this:

"If MPs pass a no confidence vote next week then we won’t resign. We won’t recommend another government, we’ll dissolve parliament, call an election between November 1-5 and there’ll be zero chance of Grieve legislation,” says senior official.

I was under the impression that BJ cannot just choose to do this under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. Isn't he under a legal obligation to recommend an alternative if it is clear that someone else can command the support of the Commons?

We are now in a Constitutional Crisis. It's really not clear what anybody has to do.


Boris says the prorogation is completely unrelated to Brexit. He's just a Prime Minister asking for a Queen's Speech to set out his policies - as he's a new PM, and as we missed the last QS already, this is actually in theory quite reasonable. And he points out that Parliament will be back in session before Brexit, so he's no preventing Parliament from blocking it, in theory. Of course, in practice it makes it virtually impossible to stop him.

The reason for all this is that there were serious concerns that the Queen would simply go nuclear and refuse his request - which would arguably be constitutional if he were just clearly trying to ignore parliament so he could rule by decree. But giving this valid, understandable, even if obviously disingenuous, excuse makes it very hard for the Queen to deny him. Although the Leader of the Opposition has written to the Queen to demand she refuse to comply, calling the PM's request "not on".

However, there's another nuclear landmine on the horizon: the Speaker.

The Speaker earlier this yea, responding to the idea of prorogation, explained: "Parliament will not be evacuated from the centre stage of the decision-making process on his important matter. That's simply not going to happen. It's just so blindingly obvious that it almost doesn't need to be stated but apparently it does and therefore I have done." Today, he called the Prime Minister's decision "a constitutional outrage".

Now, what has to happen is that the Queen declares the prorogation to the Lords, and the Speaker is present as a guest for that and then goes to the Commons and announces the prorogation there.

But: what if he doesn't? There is precedent for a Speaker refusing to yield to the demands of the Monarch, and for Parliament continuing to sit when told by the Monarch to dismiss: the precedent is the Civil War. [on the other hand, this prorogation is already the most delayed since the Civil War]


Opposition parties, meanwhile, have pledged to form an "alternative parliament" - the SNP have called Johnson's move "a coup", and Labour have called Johnson personally a threat to the foundations of democracy. Conservative former Prime Minister Sir John Major has declared he will if necessary take the current Prime Minister to court to prevent the prorogation.

Update: the Queen has given her consent.

Mass protests are planned started this evening.

The prorogation is particularly unusual in being the longest such suspension since WWII, which may spur further lawsuits. The apolitical Hansard Society (a pro-democracy group) has called it "an affront to parliamentary democracy". Current Health Secretary Matt Hancock a few months ago said that such a move would undermine democracy and that all MPs should rule it out, so I'm guessing there'll be at least one resignation from Cabinet...

An anonymous 'senior minister' has confided to the press that they think it's "50/50" what will happen next.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:46 am Conservative former Prime Minister Sir John Major has declared he will if necessary take the current Prime Minister to court to prevent the prorogation.

Hm? How would that work, and how would he try to make it work?

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:55 am

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:46 am Conservative former Prime Minister Sir John Major has declared he will if necessary take the current Prime Minister to court to prevent the prorogation.

Hm? How would that work, and how would he try to make it work?

The Queen's actions (qua monarch) cannot be challenged in court. However, she acts on the advice from the prime minister, and people will seek to show that the prime minister's advice was illegal, in telling the queen to do something unconstitutional.

EDIT: to clarify, Major declared that before the prorogation was actually announced, as a threat. He now says that he is taking legal advice and won't comment until he's decided what to do.

The Queen, it appears, is going to be a very busy woman for a while - it seems as though all the party leaders and some random MPs have written to demand meetings with her.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:58 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:55 am

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:46 am Conservative former Prime Minister Sir John Major has declared he will if necessary take the current Prime Minister to court to prevent the prorogation.

Hm? How would that work, and how would he try to make it work?

The Queen's actions (qua monarch) cannot be challenged in court. However, she acts on the advice from the prime minister, and people will seek to show that the prime minister's advice was illegal, in telling the queen to do something unconstitutional.

EDIT: to clarify, Major declared that before the prorogation was actually announced, as a threat. He now says that he is taking legal advice and won't comment until he's decided what to do.

In which way would John Major be better positioned for that than John Smith, grocer, of Wolvington-on-Sea? Does it have to do with Major's status as a Privy Councillor?

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:07 am

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:58 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:55 am

Hm? How would that work, and how would he try to make it work?

The Queen's actions (qua monarch) cannot be challenged in court. However, she acts on the advice from the prime minister, and people will seek to show that the prime minister's advice was illegal, in telling the queen to do something unconstitutional.

EDIT: to clarify, Major declared that before the prorogation was actually announced, as a threat. He now says that he is taking legal advice and won't comment until he's decided what to do.

In which way would John Major be better positioned for that than John Smith, grocer, of Wolvington-on-Sea? Does it have to do with Major's status as a Privy Councillor?

Inherently, he's not (although of course he does have some incidental privileges and probably more access to informaiton than John Smith*). But I imagine Sir John knows some better lawyers.

More generally, though, when the former head of government talks about suing the current head of government, it's notable because a) it's very unusual - former PMs generally stay out of the way - and b) it tends to indicate that a lot of other powerful people are of like mind.

Plus, of course, somebody like Major is a bit more of a threat because he's more or less incorruptible at this point - the government has nothing to threaten him with or bribe him with, so if he says he's going to do something, he's more likely to follow through than John Smith is.

But to be sure, if Major decides against it, someone else will do it - like Gina Miller, the random activist woman who sued the government and won over May's plan to not consult Parliament on activating Article 50.


*a slightly weird name to be typing in this case. Although 'John Smith' is indeed the usual "random person" name, it's also the name of the former Labour leader who opposed John Major in the early 90s...

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:19 am But to be sure, if Major decides against it, someone else will do it - like Gina Miller, the random activist woman who sued the government and won over May's plan to not consult Parliament on activating Article 50.

Ah, good to know.

Ruth is very likely to step down, which won't do the Scottish C*ns*rv*t*v* *nd *n**n*st P*rty any good. A silver lining, maybe?

I've always found it odd that the most popular politician in Scotland leads one of the least popular parties.

To be fair, most of the most popular politicians in America at the state level are from parties that are very unpopular in their state.

In some ways, it's an advantage - if you're a Conservative (Republican, etc), you can get points from non-Tories just by not being awful. If you belong to a popular party, people expect a lot of you, and any failure to agree with them is a betrayal; if you're from an unpopular party, any agreement at all is seen as a sign of uncommon integrity and insight...

Anyway, it could be worse! She could have tried taking the Scottish Conservatives out of the Conservative Party... instead, she's just quitting to spend more time with her family.

It will, however, be a big blow, particularly in the election, because the Tories are relying on the Scottish MPs they have largely because of Davidson.


-----

Anyway: my caveat example was prophetic. Gina Miller has indeed sought judicial review. It should be noted that the judicial review system in the UK is separate from the normal legal system, in that, unlike in America, cases do not have to slowly percolate through the system from the bottom up through ordinary lawsuits, but can be taken immediately to the supreme court. [On the other hand, you can't normally get judicial review over legislation, only against executive actions]


--------

Actions open to Parliament that avoid a direct constitutional clash: they could remove Johnson through a VONC, or they could legislate to prevent the prorogation.

Johnson, however, is apparently planning to not step aside even if he's VONCed. He's meant to tell the Queen if anyone's able to replace him, but rumour is he just won't, and will therefore force us into an election instead.

Indeed, there's a theory that this is all a gambit to force Parliament to call an election, which Johnson himself can't technically call without the consent of the Opposition...