FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Today the supreme court will decide over boris.
Today the supreme court will decide over boris.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
If what he did was illegal to shut down the parliament, we will know the verdic about 10.30am, what do you reckon the outcome will be? I reckon they will find it illegal, will he resign? He might  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"If what he did was illegal to shut down the parliament, we will know the verdic about 10.30am, what do you reckon the outcome will be? I reckon they will find it illegal, will he resign? He might "
No.
The act was political and in Parliament that is that. I wish this were not the case - but I think it is. In the longer term we may end up with a written Constitution as a consequence.
To find it illegal the Supreme Court will have to set a new legal precedent and that opens up a whole new minefield. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If what he did was illegal to shut down the parliament, we will know the verdic about 10.30am, what do you reckon the outcome will be? I reckon they will find it illegal, will he resign? He might
No.
The act was political and in Parliament that is that. I wish this were not the case - but I think it is. In the longer term we may end up with a written Constitution as a consequence.
To find it illegal the Supreme Court will have to set a new legal precedent and that opens up a whole new minefield."
I agree, they won’t find it illegal but it is unconstitutional,however it has further exposed Boris and his cronies for what they are  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
He might recall parliament but hang on labour can't go they are busy in Brighton. It's a joke of the 5 weeks it's been closed 3 are used up with confidence time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If what he did was illegal to shut down the parliament, we will know the verdic about 10.30am, what do you reckon the outcome will be? I reckon they will find it illegal, will he resign? He might
No.
The act was political and in Parliament that is that. I wish this were not the case - but I think it is. In the longer term we may end up with a written Constitution as a consequence.
To find it illegal the Supreme Court will have to set a new legal precedent and that opens up a whole new minefield."
That's pretty much the way I thought it would go at first but I'm not so sure now.
If the court holds in line with The High Court that the matter is none justiciable then that would mean that it is lawful for any PM to prorogue Parliament for any period of time for any or no reason what so ever. The opinion going around many circles is the Supreme Court would not want to set such a legal president and effectively remove any genuine legal democratic accountability under law at one swift stroke. For this reason I think The Supreme Court will agree with the conclusion of The Court of Session that the matter is justiciable then the only question left is the legality of the advice given by the PM to the Queen. On this the matter lies on two things. Firstly whether the reason given by Johnson for proroguing were actually the real reasons he gave. On this I can see no reason why, given the same evidence and no new facts, why The Supreme Court should come to a different conclusion from the Court of Session. Secondly did Johnson mislead or deceive the Queen when he advised her. This second point is far more debatable. The PM does need to give a reason for their advice to the Queen and officially the Queen should not question the advice given to Her by Her Ministers. It's quite possible that Johnson simply adviced Her to prorogue Parliament without giving Her any reason at all, in which case there is no misleading or lying to Queen involved. It's a tough call and far finer legal minds than mine are unsure which way the ruling will go but one thing we do know for sure is that a court (The Court of Session) has already found that the reason Johnson gave for proroguing Parliament are not the reason he told Parliament and that he has definitely mislead the House. A ruling either way by The Supreme Court will not change that finding and that alone should, and would in any other situation, be reason enough to demand Johnson's resignation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Boris Johnson could set fire to Parliament and there's a significant number of people who would not care, so long as he delivers Brexit.
It has taken on a religious mantra that allow followers to excuse any misdemeanor or bad news that gets in the way of taking them to the promised land. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Boris Johnson could set fire to Parliament and there's a significant number of people who would not care, so long as he delivers Brexit.
It has taken on a religious mantra that allow followers to excuse any misdemeanor or bad news that gets in the way of taking them to the promised land."
Thats rich didnt you hear the corbyn chants at the conference? the labour party has turned into some kind of cult.I can see why they didn't want a conference this year its showing them up for what they are.Its like watching a committee in a badly run working mans club.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I wonder if Boris will resign or will he allow it to become a festering wound of lies and deceit to eat away at the Conservative party.
The damage has already been done though he’s now seen as a tin pot dictator..  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Boris Johnson could set fire to Parliament and there's a significant number of people who would not care, so long as he delivers Brexit.
It has taken on a religious mantra that allow followers to excuse any misdemeanor or bad news that gets in the way of taking them to the promised land.Thats rich didnt you hear the corbyn chants at the conference? the labour party has turned into some kind of cult.I can see why they didn't want a conference this year its showing them up for what they are.Its like watching a committee in a badly run working mans club. "
The fact that Labour maybe showing itself to be somewhere between useless and unfit for government has no bearing on the matter of whether the government mislead the Queen, the country and Parliament. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The thread is about the supreme court case - and you want to shift the focus onto the Labour Party?
How very odd.
"
As ever, the right is incapable of defending their own side's actions. All they can do is point and sputter 'but what about those guys!' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"An unelected Prime Minister closes down the elected Parliament by lying to the country and the head of state.
Remind me which banana republic we're talking about?"
The Prime Minister is never elected, other than as an MP. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"An unelected Prime Minister closes down the elected Parliament by lying to the country and the head of state.
Remind me which banana republic we're talking about?"
Brexit Britain |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What to do with the traitorous liar now???
Banished from the kingdom?? Or beheading.. or will he do the honourable thing and fall on his sword... "
Nah let him try and waffle and bluster his way out of this one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"What to do with the traitorous liar now???
Banished from the kingdom?? Or beheading.. or will he do the honourable thing and fall on his sword... "
maybe he could appeal to the ECJ ? oh wait ......... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What to do with the traitorous liar now???
Banished from the kingdom?? Or beheading.. or will he do the honourable thing and fall on his sword... "
I think any normal self respecting Prime Minister would resign immediately but I don't think Boris is one of them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He’ll open the doors tomorrow and then he should resign or face being called a traitor and liar for all eternity
The law is above you Boris.
"
Thing is that would only affect people who have respect and integrity, neither of those Boris has. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And recalling Parliament will do what ??? If it hadn’t been prorogued it still wouldn’t be sitting due to the Party Conferences. "
..
that's what I thought...
and Boris is in New York anyway |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And recalling Parliament will do what ??? If it hadn’t been prorogued it still wouldn’t be sitting due to the Party Conferences. "
I think in a rule of Law that point is irrelevant |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And recalling Parliament will do what ??? If it hadn’t been prorogued it still wouldn’t be sitting due to the Party Conferences. "
Indeed so that emphasise the question even more as to why did Boris do it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And recalling Parliament will do what ??? If it hadn’t been prorogued it still wouldn’t be sitting due to the Party Conferences.
Indeed so that emphasise the question even more as to why did Boris do it? "
Justices Lady Hale and Lord Reed write in paragraph 61 of the judgement document: "It is impossible for us to conclude on the evidence... that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And recalling Parliament will do what ??? If it hadn’t been prorogued it still wouldn’t be sitting due to the Party Conferences.
I think in a rule of Law that point is irrelevant "
Another great victory for representative democracy and the rule of law. It's now down to the speakers to call the MPs back and decide what to do next.
Party Conferences play second fiddle to a national crisis.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"If what he did was illegal to shut down the parliament, we will know the verdic about 10.30am, what do you reckon the outcome will be? I reckon they will find it illegal, will he resign? He might
No.
The act was political and in Parliament that is that. I wish this were not the case - but I think it is. In the longer term we may end up with a written Constitution as a consequence.
To find it illegal the Supreme Court will have to set a new legal precedent and that opens up a whole new minefield."
So very, very happy to have been wrong lol  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"And recalling Parliament will do what ??? If it hadn’t been prorogued it still wouldn’t be sitting due to the Party Conferences. "
A motion for recess had not come before the Parliament before it was shut down. It was by no means certain this year's conferences would go ahead as normal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"And recalling Parliament will do what ??? If it hadn’t been prorogued it still wouldn’t be sitting due to the Party Conferences. "
Not necessarily. Parliament has to vote for a recess for the conferences to take place.
Depending on what was happening in Parliament and how cavalier Johnson was behaving, they could have easily voted not to recess. The conferences could have still happened but Parliament would also still have had functioning committee's and meetings albeit PMQ's may not have taken place. The SNP manage to combine their conference with attending Parliament so there is no reason why the other Party's cant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"An unelected Prime Minister closes down the elected Parliament by lying to the country and the head of state.
Remind me which banana republic we're talking about?
The Prime Minister is never elected, other than as an MP. "
Ok, a Prime Minister with no mandate from the electorate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
Johnson has repeatedly stated that he will not ask The EU for an extension after 31st October ,,,, as things stand at the moment he may not have to , as he might not be Prime Minister for much longer and the baton may be passed on to Tory leader number 4 since the referendum |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And recalling Parliament will do what ??? If it hadn’t been prorogued it still wouldn’t be sitting due to the Party Conferences.
I think in a rule of Law that point is irrelevant
Another great victory for representative democracy and the rule of law. It's now down to the speakers to call the MPs back and decide what to do next.
Party Conferences play second fiddle to a national crisis.
"
Again what will Parliament do ??
They’ve already passed the no deal bill.
So recalling Parliament to have them sit there yelling yah boo sucks at one another will accomplish what ??
Boris cannot be impeached as the procedure is effectively obsolete.
Being found in contempt of Parliament, well nothing happened when Theresa May was found in contempt.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Does anybody seriously think we are leaving on the 31st of October.
Not even the Brexit party think we are leaving on that date now,they’ve just said there will now have to be an extension and Boris must resign...
Just wow!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Piss-ups and breweries spring to mind.
I somehow doubt this point will land with the Brexiteers, but this farce gives a sense of perspective of Britain's true standing in the world. It is a shambles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don’t know what this means now for any future government . This week, next month or in the next 20 years.
Other than the big headline from this judgement, do we all know in full what consequences this will have ?
I’m not sure we do.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Bercow has just called parliament back to sit .
Its possible an emergency government will now form and take control of this.
Jo Swinson has put forward the Mother and the Father of the House Harriet Harman and Ken Clarke as people who could potentially lead that emergency government.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Bercow has just called parliament back to sit .
Its possible an emergency government will now form and take control of this.
Jo Swinson has put forward the Mother and the Father of the House Harriet Harman and Ken Clarke as people who could potentially lead that emergency government.
"
Where are all the Boris fanboys on here today |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don’t know what this means now for any future government . This week, next month or in the next 20 years.
Other than the big headline from this judgement, do we all know in full what consequences this will have ?
I’m not sure we do.
"
Yes, that Government's cannot act and are not above the law |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office."
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don’t know what this means now for any future government . This week, next month or in the next 20 years.
Other than the big headline from this judgement, do we all know in full what consequences this will have ?
I’m not sure we do.
"
a dictatorship ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So we get an extension, then what ??
Parliament has been very good at saying what it doesn’t want, i.e. no deal and the withdrawal agreement.
Which the EU has said is the only deal on the table.
In the indicative votes in March it ruled out,
No Deal,
Repealing Article 50,
EEA and EFTA option,
Common Market 2,
Customs Union,
A Confirmatory Public Vote on any deal,
Labours Alternative Plan
Contingent preferential arrangements (The Malthouse Option).
So what next ??
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
"
The courts don't challenge anything... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
"
It means that any future government can’t lie and deceive MPs to prorogue parliament. Simple |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Next is the inevitable referendum.It was always going to be thrown back to the people ..
"
but if it's an even bigger leave result we're back to square one.. it won't be accepted.. though somehow I doubt it will be  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t know what this means now for any future government . This week, next month or in the next 20 years.
Other than the big headline from this judgement, do we all know in full what consequences this will have ?
I’m not sure we do.
Yes, that Government's cannot act and are not above the law "
Actually Parliament is above the law,
Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It is a triumph for parliamentary democracy and the rule of the laws which our whole country live by. There was talk of remainers treason and bringing back capital punishment by a vocal Brexiteer on another thread in the last couple of days - he’s gone a bit quiet! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don’t know what this means now for any future government . This week, next month or in the next 20 years.
Other than the big headline from this judgement, do we all know in full what consequences this will have ?
I’m not sure we do.
Yes, that Government's cannot act and are not above the law
Actually Parliament is above the law,
Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution."
It isn’t above the law |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Next is the inevitable referendum.It was always going to be thrown back to the people ..
"
Parliament rejected that in the indicative votes in March. As I said Parliament has been great at saying what it doesn’t want but so not so good at saying what it does want.
What happens if another referendum says leave with a bigger majority if there was a second referendum ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
The courts don't challenge anything... "
Correct, but anyone with deep enough pockets can.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
It means that any future government can’t lie and deceive MPs to prorogue parliament. Simple "
Yes
And opens the floodgates for any other matter to be challenged in the courts ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don’t know what this means now for any future government . This week, next month or in the next 20 years.
Other than the big headline from this judgement, do we all know in full what consequences this will have ?
I’m not sure we do.
Yes, that Government's cannot act and are not above the law
Actually Parliament is above the law,
Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution."
There's no "actually" about it as I clearly said the Government isn't above the law, I said nothing about Parliament.....
One thing though, I've never heard of Parliament being able to create a law that future Parliaments cannot change, yet you previously say in the same post parliaments can create or end any law....
Make you mind up lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What to do with the traitorous liar now???
Banished from the kingdom?? Or beheading.. or will he do the honourable thing and fall on his sword... "
Sorry Bob but you lost me when you used the word honourable in relation to Boris..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
It means that any future government can’t lie and deceive MPs to prorogue parliament. Simple
Yes
And opens the floodgates for any other matter to be challenged in the courts ?"
Yeah, if you lie to parliament and the queen the expect to get taken to court? Seems fair enough to me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eordiesCouple
over a year ago
newcastle |
Andrea Leadsome said that she would not give taxpayers money to Thomas Cook as it would be throwing good money after bad. Fair enough.
She then went on to say on Sky News
Leadsom said that the government must "do more to align directors’ pay to performance".
So based on that how much should MPS be paid for their performance over Brexit ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
It means that any future government can’t lie and deceive MPs to prorogue parliament. Simple
Yes
And opens the floodgates for any other matter to be challenged in the courts ?"
No that's just a weak excuse for this not to be challenged in the first place.
The option of changing anything that has merit has and will always be available |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Next is the inevitable referendum.It was always going to be thrown back to the people ..
Parliament rejected that in the indicative votes in March. As I said Parliament has been great at saying what it doesn’t want but so not so good at saying what it does want.
What happens if another referendum says leave with a bigger majority if there was a second referendum ??"
It’s all uncharted territory.The direction of travel will be decided by parliament in the next few weeks . Our final destination is still unclear.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Andrea Leadsome said that she would not give taxpayers money to Thomas Cook as it would be throwing good money after bad. Fair enough.
She then went on to say on Sky News
Leadsom said that the government must "do more to align directors’ pay to performance".
So based on that how much should MPS be paid for their performance over Brexit ?"
Which MPs do you think have performed the worst? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Andrea Leadsome said that she would not give taxpayers money to Thomas Cook as it would be throwing good money after bad. Fair enough.
She then went on to say on Sky News
Leadsom said that the government must "do more to align directors’ pay to performance".
So based on that how much should MPS be paid for their performance over Brexit ?"
Very true |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Next is the inevitable referendum.It was always going to be thrown back to the people ..
Parliament rejected that in the indicative votes in March. As I said Parliament has been great at saying what it doesn’t want but so not so good at saying what it does want.
What happens if another referendum says leave with a bigger majority if there was a second referendum ??
It’s all uncharted territory.The direction of travel will be decided by parliament in the next few weeks . Our final destination is still unclear.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"Andrea Leadsome said that she would not give taxpayers money to Thomas Cook as it would be throwing good money after bad. Fair enough.
She then went on to say on Sky News
Leadsom said that the government must "do more to align directors’ pay to performance".
So based on that how much should MPS be paid for their performance over Brexit ?"
She had no problem spending £1 billion on the DUP when her own job was on the line. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
"
The courts are the custodians of the constitution.
Anyone can seek judicial review of the state at any time.
It is part of the checks and balances in the British form of democracy.
Parliament makes the laws and the courts uphold them.
In this case, the courts found the Government sought to abuse the powers it had been granted by Parliament.
It is open to Parliament to rewrite the rules of prorogation should it choose to do so.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
It means that any future government can’t lie and deceive MPs to prorogue parliament. Simple
Yes
And opens the floodgates for any other matter to be challenged in the courts ?
No that's just a weak excuse for this not to be challenged in the first place.
The option of changing anything that has merit has and will always be available "
My question isn’t about offering an excuse. You misunderstand .
I know what this judgement means for the matter in hand - what I am interested in is whether this will have much wider consequences we don’t yet know or fully understand.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Last week...
"The prorogation had nothing at all to do with Brexit, it was a normal Parliamentary procedure"
Today...
"This is just another example of Remainers trying to thwart Brexit.""
Yup |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
It means that any future government can’t lie and deceive MPs to prorogue parliament. Simple
Yes
And opens the floodgates for any other matter to be challenged in the courts ?
No that's just a weak excuse for this not to be challenged in the first place.
The option of changing anything that has merit has and will always be available
My question isn’t about offering an excuse. You misunderstand .
I know what this judgement means for the matter in hand - what I am interested in is whether this will have much wider consequences we don’t yet know or fully understand.
"
Hopefully it will |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think remoaners should all take a minute and think about how our leave forum members feel right now..,
They are in our thoughts and prayers . "
do you think this is going to heal the divide then bob or widen it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
"
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think remoaners should all take a minute and think about how our leave forum members feel right now..,
They are in our thoughts and prayers . do you think this is going to heal the divide then bob or widen it "
The division grows greater but that’s not the fault of remain or leave voters.
It’s Boris who lied and created the situation and opened up a greater divide.
Calling out a liar is the right thing to do regardless of how you voted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I was right and the verdict was it was unlawful
Yes you were, and fair play to you, I hope those who ridiculed you in here will now apologise "
Yes I reckon they will do that too, it was pretty clear that it would be this result |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?"
Hopefully, leave voters were warned this would happen so they can’t complain |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If the governments defence in court was proroguing parliament had nothing to do with Brexit
Can someone please explain to me how are the 11 jugdes by finding the government wrong in proroguing parliament now standing in the way of The United Kingdom leaving the EU in the eyes of Brexiteers |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the governments defence in court was proroguing parliament had nothing to do with Brexit
Can someone please explain to me how are the 11 jugdes by finding the government wrong in proroguing parliament now standing in the way of The United Kingdom leaving the EU in the eyes of Brexiteers "
This makes no sense no matter how many times I read it. What are you saying ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I want you to imagine Snoopy the dog... on his back, with his legs up in the air, laughing his head off...
that's the European Union that is !"
Leave voters were warned this would happen, they can’t complain |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?"
Did you really believe the Government was sovereign over Parliament
I honestly thought most people understood Parliament is sovereign |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?"
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If what he did was illegal to shut down the parliament, we will know the verdic about 10.30am, what do you reckon the outcome will be? I reckon they will find it illegal, will he resign? He might "
I wonder if he will resign. It wouldn't be like him to do the right thing. He may well decide to cling on through sheer belief in his entitlement. That would be instinctive to him.
I also wonder how many of the despicable wretches in his Cabinet will turn on him because they want his job?
In any case, he is - as he was when he first took office - utterly unfit to be Prime Minister. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Last week...
"The prorogation had nothing at all to do with Brexit, it was a normal Parliamentary procedure"
Today...
"This is just another example of Remainers trying to thwart Brexit.""
the fact that the PM wouldn't give a legally binding statement to the intent to the court....and then in his first pool interview said the decision hinders his brexit negoiations tells you all you need to know.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the governments defence in court was proroguing parliament had nothing to do with Brexit
Can someone please explain to me how are the 11 jugdes by finding the government wrong in proroguing parliament now standing in the way of The United Kingdom leaving the EU in the eyes of Brexiteers
This makes no sense no matter how many times I read it. What are you saying ?"
I see Brexiteers on here and other forms of social media saying that the 11 judges and the decision they made is some way of stopping or delayimg The United Kingdoms withdrawal from the EU as its another way for the remainers stopping the will of the people
Yet the governments defence in court was proroguing parliment had nothing to do with there plans no withdrawal
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much. "
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We’re testing our institutions, but they are strong and will see us through this.
Democracy doesn’t die if a PM attempts to prorogue Parliament, or if the #SupremeCourt overrules him, or if MPs act on their consciences.
It will if we don’t respect the referendum and each other. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
"
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the governments defence in court was proroguing parliament had nothing to do with Brexit
Can someone please explain to me how are the 11 jugdes by finding the government wrong in proroguing parliament now standing in the way of The United Kingdom leaving the EU in the eyes of Brexiteers
This makes no sense no matter how many times I read it. What are you saying ?
I see Brexiteers on here and other forms of social media saying that the 11 judges and the decision they made is some way of stopping or delayimg The United Kingdoms withdrawal from the EU as its another way for the remainers stopping the will of the people
Yet the governments defence in court was proroguing parliment had nothing to do with there plans no withdrawal
"
The Supreme Court ruling has no effect on Brexit. They were at pains to point this out. All they ruled on was the advice given to the Queen for proroguing Parliament. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If the governments defence in court was proroguing parliament had nothing to do with Brexit
Can someone please explain to me how are the 11 jugdes by finding the government wrong in proroguing parliament now standing in the way of The United Kingdom leaving the EU in the eyes of Brexiteers
This makes no sense no matter how many times I read it. What are you saying ?
I see Brexiteers on here and other forms of social media saying that the 11 judges and the decision they made is some way of stopping or delayimg The United Kingdoms withdrawal from the EU as its another way for the remainers stopping the will of the people
Yet the governments defence in court was proroguing parliment had nothing to do with there plans no withdrawal
The Supreme Court ruling has no effect on Brexit. They were at pains to point this out. All they ruled on was the advice given to the Queen for proroguing Parliament. "
Agreed, but why did Boris try to prorogue parliament?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I was staggered to hear Farage even say prorogue of Parliament was a terrible terrible idea yet he says its Cummings that should go and not Boris. "
Cummings will be thrown under the Brexit bus for sure..,
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I was staggered to hear Farage even say prorogue of Parliament was a terrible terrible idea yet he says its Cummings that should go and not Boris. "
I read his tweet, he is getting desperate |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I was staggered to hear Farage even say prorogue of Parliament was a terrible terrible idea yet he says its Cummings that should go and not Boris.
Cummings will be thrown under the Brexit bus for sure..,
"
Ha, feed the monster with it's own disciples |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the governments defence in court was proroguing parliament had nothing to do with Brexit
Can someone please explain to me how are the 11 jugdes by finding the government wrong in proroguing parliament now standing in the way of The United Kingdom leaving the EU in the eyes of Brexiteers
This makes no sense no matter how many times I read it. What are you saying ?
I see Brexiteers on here and other forms of social media saying that the 11 judges and the decision they made is some way of stopping or delayimg The United Kingdoms withdrawal from the EU as its another way for the remainers stopping the will of the people
Yet the governments defence in court was proroguing parliment had nothing to do with there plans no withdrawal
The Supreme Court ruling has no effect on Brexit. They were at pains to point this out. All they ruled on was the advice given to the Queen for proroguing Parliament.
Agreed, but why did Boris try to prorogue parliament??"
For political advantage.
The same as Clement Attlee in 1948 and John Major in 1996 and 1997. Admittedly in 1996 he took advantage of the long summer recess, Parliament didn’t sit from the 25 July until 14 October. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that? "
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So in other words Parliament was originally too stupid to know what THEY were voting for ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If the governments defence in court was proroguing parliament had nothing to do with Brexit
Can someone please explain to me how are the 11 jugdes by finding the government wrong in proroguing parliament now standing in the way of The United Kingdom leaving the EU in the eyes of Brexiteers
This makes no sense no matter how many times I read it. What are you saying ?
I see Brexiteers on here and other forms of social media saying that the 11 judges and the decision they made is some way of stopping or delayimg The United Kingdoms withdrawal from the EU as its another way for the remainers stopping the will of the people
Yet the governments defence in court was proroguing parliment had nothing to do with there plans no withdrawal
The Supreme Court ruling has no effect on Brexit. They were at pains to point this out. All they ruled on was the advice given to the Queen for proroguing Parliament.
Agreed, but why did Boris try to prorogue parliament??
For political advantage.
The same as Clement Attlee in 1948 and John Major in 1996 and 1997. Admittedly in 1996 he took advantage of the long summer recess, Parliament didn’t sit from the 25 July until 14 October. "
Exactly, and he has been found out? That has to be a good thing?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So in other words Parliament was originally too stupid to know what THEY were voting for ??"
Too stupid or fed too many lies? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I was staggered to hear Farage even say prorogue of Parliament was a terrible terrible idea yet he says its Cummings that should go and not Boris.
Cummings will be thrown under the Brexit bus for sure..,
Ha, feed the monster with it's own disciples "
The Brexit gods demand a sacrifice..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I was staggered to hear Farage even say prorogue of Parliament was a terrible terrible idea yet he says its Cummings that should go and not Boris.
Cummings will be thrown under the Brexit bus for sure..,
"
Looks like it’s maybe Geoffrey Cox who is going under that bus!
Sky news has a leaked unredacted document that shows the AG advised the PM the prorogue would be lawful
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
"
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
"
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
"
It's not clear though is it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
It's not clear though is it.
"
I would have thought as we all know the current treaty deal arranged for the withdrawal and it's not what leave MP's even want and Boris saying we're leaving do or die then yes, I'd say the current situation is crystal clear and that's why Parliament are not prepared to facilitate something that the people didnt vote for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
It's not clear though is it.
I would have thought as we all know the current treaty deal arranged for the withdrawal and it's not what leave MP's even want and Boris saying we're leaving do or die then yes, I'd say the current situation is crystal clear and that's why Parliament are not prepared to facilitate something that the people didnt vote for. "
all based on the result of an advisory referendum as you and others keep mentioning...
so why didn't they stand up and be counted sooner... instead they vote for and allow Article 50 to be invoked |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Well I was wrong the government are now unlawful and untrustworthy, Jeremy Corbyn must call for an immediate election tomorrow so we the People can vote the Tories out of office to be replaced by the brexit party  . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well I was wrong the government are now unlawful and untrustworthy, Jeremy Corbyn must call for an immediate election tomorrow so we the People can vote the Tories out of office to be replaced by the brexit party ."
You were hilariously wrong, you must feel a bit stupid today |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
It's not clear though is it.
I would have thought as we all know the current treaty deal arranged for the withdrawal and it's not what leave MP's even want and Boris saying we're leaving do or die then yes, I'd say the current situation is crystal clear and that's why Parliament are not prepared to facilitate something that the people didnt vote for.
all based on the result of an advisory referendum as you and others keep mentioning...
so why didn't they stand up and be counted sooner... instead they vote for and allow Article 50 to be invoked"
You are clutching at straws , what is the real point you are trying to make |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
It's not clear though is it.
I would have thought as we all know the current treaty deal arranged for the withdrawal and it's not what leave MP's even want and Boris saying we're leaving do or die then yes, I'd say the current situation is crystal clear and that's why Parliament are not prepared to facilitate something that the people didnt vote for.
all based on the result of an advisory referendum as you and others keep mentioning...
so why didn't they stand up and be counted sooner... instead they vote for and allow Article 50 to be invoked
You are clutching at straws , what is the real point you are trying to make "
its not a point, its more of an observation.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
It's not clear though is it.
I would have thought as we all know the current treaty deal arranged for the withdrawal and it's not what leave MP's even want and Boris saying we're leaving do or die then yes, I'd say the current situation is crystal clear and that's why Parliament are not prepared to facilitate something that the people didnt vote for.
all based on the result of an advisory referendum as you and others keep mentioning...
so why didn't they stand up and be counted sooner... instead they vote for and allow Article 50 to be invoked
You are clutching at straws , what is the real point you are trying to make
its not a point, its more of an observation.
"
Ah, my observation is that your clutching at straws and making a bit of a fool of yourself on here |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
It's not clear though is it.
I would have thought as we all know the current treaty deal arranged for the withdrawal and it's not what leave MP's even want and Boris saying we're leaving do or die then yes, I'd say the current situation is crystal clear and that's why Parliament are not prepared to facilitate something that the people didnt vote for.
all based on the result of an advisory referendum as you and others keep mentioning...
so why didn't they stand up and be counted sooner... instead they vote for and allow Article 50 to be invoked
You are clutching at straws , what is the real point you are trying to make
its not a point, its more of an observation.
Ah, my observation is that your clutching at straws and making a bit of a fool of yourself on here "
My choice
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
It's not clear though is it.
I would have thought as we all know the current treaty deal arranged for the withdrawal and it's not what leave MP's even want and Boris saying we're leaving do or die then yes, I'd say the current situation is crystal clear and that's why Parliament are not prepared to facilitate something that the people didnt vote for.
all based on the result of an advisory referendum as you and others keep mentioning...
so why didn't they stand up and be counted sooner... instead they vote for and allow Article 50 to be invoked
You are clutching at straws , what is the real point you are trying to make
its not a point, its more of an observation.
Ah, my observation is that your clutching at straws and making a bit of a fool of yourself on here
My choice
"
Of course , crack on, it is entertaining |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well I was wrong the government are now unlawful and untrustworthy, Jeremy Corbyn must call for an immediate election tomorrow so we the People can vote the Tories out of office to be replaced by the brexit party .
You were hilariously wrong, you must feel a bit stupid today "
.
Shit happens, let's just hope Jeremy gets his act together and calls for an election |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
It's not clear though is it.
I would have thought as we all know the current treaty deal arranged for the withdrawal and it's not what leave MP's even want and Boris saying we're leaving do or die then yes, I'd say the current situation is crystal clear and that's why Parliament are not prepared to facilitate something that the people didnt vote for.
all based on the result of an advisory referendum as you and others keep mentioning...
so why didn't they stand up and be counted sooner... instead they vote for and allow Article 50 to be invoked
You are clutching at straws , what is the real point you are trying to make
its not a point, its more of an observation.
Ah, my observation is that your clutching at straws and making a bit of a fool of yourself on here "
for your whole , highly accurate and poignant above analysis
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
It's not clear though is it.
I would have thought as we all know the current treaty deal arranged for the withdrawal and it's not what leave MP's even want and Boris saying we're leaving do or die then yes, I'd say the current situation is crystal clear and that's why Parliament are not prepared to facilitate something that the people didnt vote for.
all based on the result of an advisory referendum as you and others keep mentioning...
so why didn't they stand up and be counted sooner... instead they vote for and allow Article 50 to be invoked
You are clutching at straws , what is the real point you are trying to make
its not a point, its more of an observation.
Ah, my observation is that your clutching at straws and making a bit of a fool of yourself on here
for your whole , highly accurate and poignant above analysis
"
Thank you
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
It's not clear though is it.
I would have thought as we all know the current treaty deal arranged for the withdrawal and it's not what leave MP's even want and Boris saying we're leaving do or die then yes, I'd say the current situation is crystal clear and that's why Parliament are not prepared to facilitate something that the people didnt vote for.
all based on the result of an advisory referendum as you and others keep mentioning...
so why didn't they stand up and be counted sooner... instead they vote for and allow Article 50 to be invoked
You are clutching at straws , what is the real point you are trying to make
its not a point, its more of an observation.
Ah, my observation is that your clutching at straws and making a bit of a fool of yourself on here
for your whole , highly accurate and poignant above analysis
Thank you
"
You still haven't worked out the significance of , paid in full , how low to stoop to pretend an accolade deserved for some very articulate logic and fact derived writing could refer to your evasive offerings
Tsk  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
It's not clear though is it.
I would have thought as we all know the current treaty deal arranged for the withdrawal and it's not what leave MP's even want and Boris saying we're leaving do or die then yes, I'd say the current situation is crystal clear and that's why Parliament are not prepared to facilitate something that the people didnt vote for.
all based on the result of an advisory referendum as you and others keep mentioning...
so why didn't they stand up and be counted sooner... instead they vote for and allow Article 50 to be invoked
You are clutching at straws , what is the real point you are trying to make
its not a point, its more of an observation.
Ah, my observation is that your clutching at straws and making a bit of a fool of yourself on here
for your whole , highly accurate and poignant above analysis
Thank you
You still haven't worked out the significance of , paid in full , how low to stoop to pretend an accolade deserved for some very articulate logic and fact derived writing could refer to your evasive offerings
Tsk "
crossed wires I think...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
It's not clear though is it.
I would have thought as we all know the current treaty deal arranged for the withdrawal and it's not what leave MP's even want and Boris saying we're leaving do or die then yes, I'd say the current situation is crystal clear and that's why Parliament are not prepared to facilitate something that the people didnt vote for.
all based on the result of an advisory referendum as you and others keep mentioning...
so why didn't they stand up and be counted sooner... instead they vote for and allow Article 50 to be invoked
You are clutching at straws , what is the real point you are trying to make
its not a point, its more of an observation.
Ah, my observation is that your clutching at straws and making a bit of a fool of yourself on here
for your whole , highly accurate and poignant above analysis
Thank you
You still haven't worked out the significance of , paid in full , how low to stoop to pretend an accolade deserved for some very articulate logic and fact derived writing could refer to your evasive offerings
Tsk
crossed wires I think...
"
No not crossed just remember other threads where you evade or cannot understand very simple questions |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
crossed wires I think...
No not crossed just remember other threads where you evade or cannot understand very simple questions "
What have I evaded in this thread?
Which questions have I not understood? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well I was wrong the government are now unlawful and untrustworthy, Jeremy Corbyn must call for an immediate election tomorrow so we the People can vote the Tories out of office to be replaced by the brexit party .
You were hilariously wrong, you must feel a bit stupid today .
Shit happens, let's just hope Jeremy gets his act together and calls for an election
thats okay.. i'll take my apology!!! 
p.s 11-0 must sting just a little bit though....... "
.
Looks like the chant is right
1-0 the arse...nal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?
Ahh, missed your little quote marks...
Anyway, Parliament if they did stop Brexit can do so legally and morally since the referendum was advisory.
I still think Brexit will happen so don't worry too much.
Thanks to the same Gina Miller and Supreme Court being talked about so much today, it was ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise Article 50 to be invoked.
As a result, this same Parliament voted with a majority of 498 to 114 to approve the second reading of the Act allowing the PM to invoke article 50 unconditionally.
The appropriate time to query the status of the referendum passed some time ago, and do wonder why so many MPs from all parties voted for the Act.
You're looking at it from a black & white perspective that's the problem
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out
Are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
So your argument is that MPs were actually duped into allowing Article 50 to be invoked ?
No, it's extremely clear what I said but I'll quote it for you
The rhetoric from the official leave side was we'd have a close working relationship and a great deal with the EU, so Parliament voted to trigger A50 on that basis.
That has now mutated into a deal that leavers don't even want and now into a ugly no deal crash out so are you really that suprised Parliament won't accept that?
It's not clear though is it.
I would have thought as we all know the current treaty deal arranged for the withdrawal and it's not what leave MP's even want and Boris saying we're leaving do or die then yes, I'd say the current situation is crystal clear and that's why Parliament are not prepared to facilitate something that the people didnt vote for.
all based on the result of an advisory referendum as you and others keep mentioning...
so why didn't they stand up and be counted sooner... instead they vote for and allow Article 50 to be invoked"
I've just clearly explained twice so I'm not doing it a 3rd time, read what I've said twice already. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
crossed wires I think...
No not crossed just remember other threads where you evade or cannot understand very simple questions
What have I evaded in this thread?
Which questions have I not understood?"
Your own...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
crossed wires I think...
No not crossed just remember other threads where you evade or cannot understand very simple questions
What have I evaded in this thread?
Which questions have I not understood?
Your own...... "
Along with everyone else who haven’t been able to provide any answers of relevance |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
crossed wires I think...
No not crossed just remember other threads where you evade or cannot understand very simple questions
What have I evaded in this thread?
Which questions have I not understood?
Your own......
Along with everyone else who haven’t been able to provide any answers of relevance"
Like what? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
crossed wires I think...
No not crossed just remember other threads where you evade or cannot understand very simple questions
What have I evaded in this thread?
Which questions have I not understood?
Your own......
Along with everyone else who haven’t been able to provide any answers of relevance
Like what? "
Read the thread posts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And.....
Democracy is restored to the United Kingdom and Johnson is exposed as a fraud unfit to hold public office.
So what now ...
And the bigger question was more about what this judgement means for any future government...
A precedent has been set by the supreme court which I’m not sure we will fully understand until something else comes along in Parliament that will be challenged by the courts .
I agree, there are serious implications to this ruling that go way beyond the BREXIT issue and not all of them will necessarily be good. However a ruling the other way could have been worse in that it would have enshrined in law the the executive can dismiss parliament at its will. The problem is is that up until Johnson no Government has tried to govern against the will of Parliament since the 1640s. Johnson broke convention and tried to subvert the will of Parliament. It has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign and that has to be a good thing.
"..it has now been established that Parliament, not the Government, is sovereign.."
this will undoubtedly lead to Parliament immediately flexing its strengthened muscle to stop Brexit?
In doing so subverting the will of the people?"
That presupposes two things.
1 that 'the will of the people' is better reflected in an illegally run referendum in 2016 over a legally run General Election in 2017
2 That delivering either a 'no deal' BREXIT or a BREXIT with a deal that is not better than our current deal was the 'will of the people' even in 2016 despite the fact that the Leave campaign promised to deliver neither.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
