|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 24, 2019 19:43:47 GMT
Looks like the end is nigh. The SNP want him out pronto ( link). “The opposition has to do its job - we need to remove him and we need do that through a motion of no confidence, leading to a general election” It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow when Parliament sits again.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 24, 2019 21:16:14 GMT
He only has to ask for an extension if he doesnt bring a deal back for parliament to vote on. I suppose that depends on whether the blazing hypocrite has the brass neck to just change the font on the Theresa May deal and call the backstop something else because that's the only deal he's bringing back. I presume if parliament votes against any deal I can go to court now and get the courts to force them to implement the law which they all voted on that says we leave with or without a deal.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 25, 2019 6:03:46 GMT
Quite simple if 49% thought he had acted unlawfully then 51% did not No 30% said he didn't, as it says! This is why straw poles like this are complete bollox. You can read into it what you want to.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Sept 25, 2019 6:26:25 GMT
I suppose that depends on whether the blazing hypocrite has the brass neck to just change the font on the Theresa May deal and call the backstop something else because that's the only deal he's bringing back. I presume if parliament votes against any deal I can go to court now and get the courts to force them to implement the law which they all voted on that says we leave with or without a deal. For one there is no such law, but if there was yes you could!!
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 25, 2019 6:29:50 GMT
I suppose that depends on whether the blazing hypocrite has the brass neck to just change the font on the Theresa May deal and call the backstop something else because that's the only deal he's bringing back. I presume if parliament votes against any deal I can go to court now and get the courts to force them to implement the law which they all voted on that says we leave with or without a deal. I think Bozo and Cummings were outmanouvered on that point when he was busy breaking the law a couple of weeks back.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 25, 2019 6:31:23 GMT
No 30% said he didn't, as it says! This is why straw poles like this are complete bollox. You can read into it what you want to. Yes these ridiculous binary questions never work do they!
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 25, 2019 6:33:58 GMT
I presume if parliament votes against any deal I can go to court now and get the courts to force them to implement the law which they all voted on that says we leave with or without a deal. For one there is no such law, but if there was yes you could!! You mean no such law apart from the European Union Withdrawal act do you think if I go to the supreme court I can request the justice who wrote A50 sits I mean he is sure to be fair minded
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 25, 2019 6:34:41 GMT
I presume if parliament votes against any deal I can go to court now and get the courts to force them to implement the law which they all voted on that says we leave with or without a deal. I think Bozo and Cummings were outmanouvered on that point when he was busy breaking the law a couple of weeks back. What law is that Sheiky
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Sept 25, 2019 6:35:49 GMT
What have you all done to roger that he's still hiding under his stone. or is he following the email from conservative central office or has he finally seen the light
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 25, 2019 6:45:50 GMT
I think Bozo and Cummings were outmanouvered on that point when he was busy breaking the law a couple of weeks back. What law is that Sheiky Tricking our poor old Queen with their unlawful advice to authorise an unlawful suspension of our democracy, fyd. Our poor old Queen.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 25, 2019 6:50:02 GMT
What law is that Sheiky Tricking our poor old Queen with their unlawful advice to authorise an unlawful suspension of our democracy, fyd. Our poor old Queen. So lying to the queen is a law even though the judgement does not say he lied to the queen interesting take
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 25, 2019 6:57:18 GMT
Tricking our poor old Queen with their unlawful advice to authorise an unlawful suspension of our democracy, fyd. Our poor old Queen. So lying to the queen is a law even though the judgement does not say he lied to the queen interesting take Hmmm what's your definition of 'unlawful' fyd. Has poor old liar liar been misinterpreted again?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 25, 2019 7:17:42 GMT
So lying to the queen is a law even though the judgement does not say he lied to the queen interesting take Hmmm what's your definition of 'unlawful' fyd. Has poor old liar liar been misinterpreted again? Unlawful is quite easy to demonstrate isn't it if I do 35 in a 30 zone I am breaking the law doesnt need the supreme court to rule on that or cite precedents from 1700s. I am also pretty sure the high courts of England and NI would also be pretty clear if there was a law that could be ruled on, here it seems they are just making it up as they go along.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 25, 2019 7:24:18 GMT
So lying to the queen is a law even though the judgement does not say he lied to the queen interesting take Hmmm what's your definition of 'unlawful' fyd. Has poor old liar liar been misinterpreted again? Actually you are onto something when you talk about unlawful and misinterpretation. Has Boris broken the law? It would appear not. The reason is the law under consideration here is constitutional not criminal. And because we have an unwritten constitution the law is a question of interpretation and precedent. Johnson took advice and prorogued according to that advice. The Supreme Court decided to interpret the law differently to the advice Johnson received. Emphatically and embarrassingly for Johnson. But... No jail for Boris. And no criminal charges.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 25, 2019 7:45:31 GMT
Hmmm what's your definition of 'unlawful' fyd. Has poor old liar liar been misinterpreted again? Actually you are onto something when you talk about unlawful and misinterpretation. Has Boris broken the law? It would appear not. The reason is the law under consideration here is constitutional not criminal. And because we have an unwritten constitution the law is a question of interpretation and precedent. Johnson took advice and prorogued according to that advice. The Supreme Court decided to interpret the law differently to the advice Johnson received. Emphatically and embarrassingly for Johnson. But... No jail for Boris. And no criminal charges. That's right. Johnson broke the constitutional law not the criminal law. He broke the rules about the way parliament functions by breaching parliaments right to hold the government to account. Governments can and have been challenged in the Courts. One important function of an independent judiciary is to make sure public bodies do not use their powers inappropriately. The Supreme Courts unanimous decision has just proved that point.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 25, 2019 8:20:26 GMT
Actually you are onto something when you talk about unlawful and misinterpretation. Has Boris broken the law? It would appear not. The reason is the law under consideration here is constitutional not criminal. And because we have an unwritten constitution the law is a question of interpretation and precedent. Johnson took advice and prorogued according to that advice. The Supreme Court decided to interpret the law differently to the advice Johnson received. Emphatically and embarrassingly for Johnson. But... No jail for Boris. And no criminal charges. That's right. Johnson broke the constitutional law not the criminal law. He broke the rules about the way parliament functions by breaching parliaments right to hold the government to account. Governments can and have been challenged in the Courts. One important function of an independent judiciary is to make sure public bodies do not use their powers inappropriately. The Supreme Courts unanimous decision has just proved that point. He broke the rules did he ? The rules the supreme court just invented you mean
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 25, 2019 8:27:00 GMT
Primarily, the court has decided that you cannot arbitrarily stop Parliament fulfilling its role of scrutiny of the executive (even if you are plummy old Etonian who thinks laws and constitutional norms only apply to the oiks) so in that regard he did break Common Law and though there is no act or section that law undoubtedly now exists. I mean I’ve seen that shrew faced tossrag, Gove this morning doing the rounds and Mark Froie Gras and other sons of Gammon basically impugning the integrity of the courts. I mean imagine if Corbyn had done such a thing to allow the abolition of private schools to hit the statute books? I’m sure they would have taken a similar stance
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Sept 25, 2019 10:22:14 GMT
Primarily, the court has decided that you cannot arbitrarily stop Parliament fulfilling its role of scrutiny of the executive (even if you are plummy old Etonian who thinks laws and constitutional norms only apply to the oiks) so in that regard he did break Common Law and though there is no act or section that law undoubtedly now exists. I mean I’ve seen that shrew faced tossrag, Gove this morning doing the rounds and Mark Froie Gras and other sons of Gammon basically impugning the integrity of the courts. I mean imagine if Corbyn had done such a thing to allow the abolition of private schools to hit the statute books? I’m sure they would have taken a similar stance But isn't it Parliament that makes laws and not the Judiciary?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 25, 2019 10:54:16 GMT
Primarily, the court has decided that you cannot arbitrarily stop Parliament fulfilling its role of scrutiny of the executive (even if you are plummy old Etonian who thinks laws and constitutional norms only apply to the oiks) so in that regard he did break Common Law and though there is no act or section that law undoubtedly now exists. I mean I’ve seen that shrew faced tossrag, Gove this morning doing the rounds and Mark Froie Gras and other sons of Gammon basically impugning the integrity of the courts. I mean imagine if Corbyn had done such a thing to allow the abolition of private schools to hit the statute books? I’m sure they would have taken a similar stance But isn't it Parliament that makes laws and not the Judiciary? Well it used to be.......
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 25, 2019 10:59:39 GMT
Primarily, the court has decided that you cannot arbitrarily stop Parliament fulfilling its role of scrutiny of the executive (even if you are plummy old Etonian who thinks laws and constitutional norms only apply to the oiks) so in that regard he did break Common Law and though there is no act or section that law undoubtedly now exists. I mean I’ve seen that shrew faced tossrag, Gove this morning doing the rounds and Mark Froie Gras and other sons of Gammon basically impugning the integrity of the courts. I mean imagine if Corbyn had done such a thing to allow the abolition of private schools to hit the statute books? I’m sure they would have taken a similar stance Only Parliament wasn't stopped as it passed a new law to prevent no deal brexit, this was a political driven argument by people who are openly frustrating democracy by preventing the UK leaving the EU and it has opened up a whole new shitshow for any future governments as the royal prerogative can now be challenged. Surprise surprise this whole thing couldn't smell more fishy order-order.com/2019/09/25/jolyon-admits-government-mole/
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 25, 2019 11:08:33 GMT
Primarily, the court has decided that you cannot arbitrarily stop Parliament fulfilling its role of scrutiny of the executive (even if you are plummy old Etonian who thinks laws and constitutional norms only apply to the oiks) so in that regard he did break Common Law and though there is no act or section that law undoubtedly now exists. I mean I’ve seen that shrew faced tossrag, Gove this morning doing the rounds and Mark Froie Gras and other sons of Gammon basically impugning the integrity of the courts. I mean imagine if Corbyn had done such a thing to allow the abolition of private schools to hit the statute books? I’m sure they would have taken a similar stance Only Parliament wasn't stopped as it passed a new law to prevent no deal brexit, this was a political driven argument by people who are openly frustrating democracy by preventing the UK leaving the EU and it has opened up a whole new shitshow for any future governments as the royal prerogative can now be challenged. Surprise surprise this whole thing couldn't smell more fishy order-order.com/2019/09/25/jolyon-admits-government-mole/Some hardcore Brexiteers keep saying that, but what benefit will these people get out of frustrating democracy. In reality it's a simple case of more and more people realising that Brexit in any shape or form is a major fuck up for the UK. The facts are out there for people to see. It has nothing to do with thwarting democracy and all to do with doing what's best for the UK and the general population.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 25, 2019 11:21:47 GMT
Only Parliament wasn't stopped as it passed a new law to prevent no deal brexit, this was a political driven argument by people who are openly frustrating democracy by preventing the UK leaving the EU and it has opened up a whole new shitshow for any future governments as the royal prerogative can now be challenged. Surprise surprise this whole thing couldn't smell more fishy order-order.com/2019/09/25/jolyon-admits-government-mole/Some hardcore Brexiteers keep saying that, but what benefit will these people get out of frustrating democracy. In reality it's a simple case of more and more people realising that Brexit in any shape or form is a major fuck up for the UK. The facts are out there for people to see. It has nothing to do with thwarting democracy and all to do with doing what's best for the UK and the general population. Some times your mask of dispassionate observer slips and we get to see your true Remoaner colours.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 25, 2019 11:30:23 GMT
Only Parliament wasn't stopped as it passed a new law to prevent no deal brexit, this was a political driven argument by people who are openly frustrating democracy by preventing the UK leaving the EU and it has opened up a whole new shitshow for any future governments as the royal prerogative can now be challenged. Surprise surprise this whole thing couldn't smell more fishy order-order.com/2019/09/25/jolyon-admits-government-mole/Some hardcore Brexiteers keep saying that, but what benefit will these people get out of frustrating democracy. In reality it's a simple case of more and more people realising that Brexit in any shape or form is a major fuck up for the UK. The facts are out there for people to see. It has nothing to do with thwarting democracy and all to do with doing what's best for the UK and the general population. Utter bullshit. We are still doing well despite A50. The only thing causing any problems linked to Brexit is Parliments unwillingness to implement it
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 25, 2019 11:33:40 GMT
Actually you are onto something when you talk about unlawful and misinterpretation. Has Boris broken the law? It would appear not. The reason is the law under consideration here is constitutional not criminal. And because we have an unwritten constitution the law is a question of interpretation and precedent. Johnson took advice and prorogued according to that advice. The Supreme Court decided to interpret the law differently to the advice Johnson received. Emphatically and embarrassingly for Johnson. But... No jail for Boris. And no criminal charges. That's right. Johnson broke the constitutional law not the criminal law. He broke the rules about the way parliament functions by breaching parliaments right to hold the government to account. Governments can and have been challenged in the Courts. One important function of an independent judiciary is to make sure public bodies do not use their powers inappropriately. The Supreme Courts unanimous decision has just proved that point. I'm not so sure talking about breaking the law is helpful in this instance - mainly because he hasn't broken any law. Better to focus on the judgement which, imo, is a good one for the reasons you mention. The Government is accountable to Parliament. Parliament is accountable to the people. The first of those has been settled comprehensively by the court. The second though is a big, ongoing problem.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Sept 25, 2019 11:34:18 GMT
Just watching the attorney general answering questions they are unrepentant about lying to the queen and the porogment of parliament they have not apologised and are appearing arrogant and dismissive of the courts. what a shambles a government arrogant to the law of this land and the sovereignty of parliament.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 25, 2019 11:36:48 GMT
Some hardcore Brexiteers keep saying that, but what benefit will these people get out of frustrating democracy. In reality it's a simple case of more and more people realising that Brexit in any shape or form is a major fuck up for the UK. The facts are out there for people to see. It has nothing to do with thwarting democracy and all to do with doing what's best for the UK and the general population. Some times your mask of dispassionate observer slips and we get to see your true Remoaner colours. Depends what mood I'm in mate. What part of my post is incorrect? Happy to be proven wrong
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 25, 2019 11:38:58 GMT
Some hardcore Brexiteers keep saying that, but what benefit will these people get out of frustrating democracy. In reality it's a simple case of more and more people realising that Brexit in any shape or form is a major fuck up for the UK. The facts are out there for people to see. It has nothing to do with thwarting democracy and all to do with doing what's best for the UK and the general population. Utter bullshit. We are still doing well despite A50. The only thing causing any problems linked to Brexit is Parliments unwillingness to implement it Good to see arguments coming back based on facts. Why are parliament unwilling to implement Brexit? They're said often enough why but what's your view? Do you honestly think their end game is to 'thwart democracy' and nothing more. What do they get out of it?
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 25, 2019 11:50:15 GMT
People need to look beyond the simple 'Remoaners thwarting democracy' line and ask themselves why they think all that's happened has happened.
Stating what remainers want to do is all good, but surely there's reasoning behind it that should be considered.
Nobody does anything without a reason.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 25, 2019 11:53:37 GMT
Some times your mask of dispassionate observer slips and we get to see your true Remoaner colours. Depends what mood I'm in mate. What part of my post is incorrect? Happy to be proven wrong You appear to be asserting something as fact when it is actually opinion. So it is neither correct or incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 25, 2019 11:59:51 GMT
Depends what mood I'm in mate. What part of my post is incorrect? Happy to be proven wrong You appear to be asserting something as fact when it is actually opinion. So it is neither correct or incorrect. Yes it's my opinion, which is based on facts and on what's happened over the past 3 years. I'm doing more than just pointing fingers. As for my stance, I am far more impartial than you. Even yesterday I was defending a leaver who received condescending behaviour on a radio program. Also, I don't moan, so no need to get personal with the remoaner tag. I'll happily accept whatever outcome comes out of this mess.
|
|