By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Come off it, it was blocked by the 'Remainer' MPs in parliament who think they can overturn the result.
The ruling of the Supreme Court has revealed how corrupt our country has become. This government is being held hostage by 'Remainers' in Parliament who lied to the public at the last General Election and are running shit scared from facing them at another election. This government is merely trying to deliver what the people voted for.
No law was broken. It was a political decision by people who have no business in politics.
You only have to do the numbers on the 3rd reading of May's bill:
It lost 344 to 286. - There were 27 Tory Brexiteer rebels, had they voted for the deal it would have still resulted in a loss 317 to 313. - There were 10 DUP Brexiteer rebels that the government were relying on. Had they also voted for the bill, May could have had a majority of 323 to 307 and we would have left the EU by now (been 6 months into in the transition period).
Alternatively, had the the 7 remain-supporting Tory rebels supported May, Mays deal would still have lost 337 to 293. They couldn't have affected the result.
Conclusion: May's deal was prevented from passing by Tory and DUP brexiteers (for a variety of reasons). It was also a casualty of the the mess May made of her majority and subsequent need to be propped up by the unreliable DUP.
----------
On the court ruling, that nonsense. It's not corruption. It was simply the court saying that the government cannot break the constitutional law by suspending parliament without good reason. The rule of law applies to everyone.
It's not as simple as pointing to a single law, it's about denying parliament its sovereignty which is a fundamental aspect of our constitution. The suspension “had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.”
It's a good thing. It means a rogue government can't shut down our elected parliament because it's inconvenient. Imagine Labour was elected and then Corbyn wanted to shut down parliament to allow him to seize company or personal assets. We'd be grateful for the law saying 'nope, you can't stop parliament having a say in this'.
The government can still deliver what the people voted for, but they have to do it legally.
The real reason progress on brexit is being blocked is because the Tories can't control their MPs and May and then Boris have destroyed their majority. If they had a majority they could pretty much do what they want and get it through the Commons (as is normally the case in most normal governments).
You only have to do the numbers on the 3rd reading of May's bill:
It lost 344 to 286. - There were 27 Tory Brexiteer rebels, had they voted for the deal it would have still resulted in a loss 317 to 313. - There were 10 DUP Brexiteer rebels that the government were relying on. Had they also voted for the bill, May could have had a majority of 323 to 307 and we would have left the EU by now (been 6 months into in the transition period).
Alternatively, had the the 7 remain-supporting Tory rebels supported May, Mays deal would still have lost 337 to 293. They couldn't have affected the result.
Conclusion: May's deal was prevented from passing by Tory and DUP brexiteers (for a variety of reasons). It was also a casualty of the the mess May made of her majority and subsequent need to be propped up by the unreliable DUP.
----------
On the court ruling, that nonsense. It's not corruption. It was simply the court saying that the government cannot break the constitutional law by suspending parliament without good reason. The rule of law applies to everyone.
It's not as simple as pointing to a single law, it's about denying parliament its sovereignty which is a fundamental aspect of our constitution. The suspension “had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.”
It's a good thing. It means a rogue government can't shut down our elected parliament because it's inconvenient. Imagine Labour was elected and then Corbyn wanted to shut down parliament to allow him to seize company or personal assets. We'd be grateful for the law saying 'nope, you can't stop parliament having a say in this'.
The government can still deliver what the people voted for, but they have to do it legally.
The real reason progress on brexit is being blocked is because the Tories can't control their MPs and May and then Boris have destroyed their majority. If they had a majority they could pretty much do what they want and get it through the Commons (as is normally the case in most normal governments).
Q. Why did the speaker allow the government to prorogue Parliament if it was illegal? A. Because it was perfectly legal for the government to prorogue Parliament in these circumstances.
Do you really need me to go through all of the occasions British governments have prorogued Parliament and compare? You don't want that do you, it would make your position look very silly indeed.
"What is perfectly true is that they have invented a new legal doctrine to achieve that result...." In other words, they have moved the goalposts post prorogation. Have you got that Monmouth, pego and the rest. Can you comprehend.
"...but the result itself is perfectly admirable"
…but they are not playing politics are they. Anyone who wants political power in a democracy has to stand for election and put themselves, their opinions and their policies before the electorate.
Q. Why did the speaker allow the government to prorogue Parliament if it was illegal? A. Because it was perfectly legal for the government to prorogue Parliament in these circumstances.
Do you really need me to go through all of the occasions British governments have prorogued Parliament and compare? You don't want that do you, it would make your position look very silly indeed.
"What is perfectly true is that they have invented a new legal doctrine to achieve that result...." In other words, they have moved the goalposts post prorogation. Have you got that Monmouth, pego and the rest. Can you comprehend.
"...but the result itself is perfectly admirable"
…but they are not playing politics are they. Anyone who wants political power in a democracy has to stand for election and put themselves, their opinions and their policies before the electorate.
[Post edited 25 Sep 2019 10:30]
Supreme Court 11 - O Kerouac â€Supreme Court 11 - O Johnson
You only have to do the numbers on the 3rd reading of May's bill:
It lost 344 to 286. - There were 27 Tory Brexiteer rebels, had they voted for the deal it would have still resulted in a loss 317 to 313. - There were 10 DUP Brexiteer rebels that the government were relying on. Had they also voted for the bill, May could have had a majority of 323 to 307 and we would have left the EU by now (been 6 months into in the transition period).
Alternatively, had the the 7 remain-supporting Tory rebels supported May, Mays deal would still have lost 337 to 293. They couldn't have affected the result.
Conclusion: May's deal was prevented from passing by Tory and DUP brexiteers (for a variety of reasons). It was also a casualty of the the mess May made of her majority and subsequent need to be propped up by the unreliable DUP.
----------
On the court ruling, that nonsense. It's not corruption. It was simply the court saying that the government cannot break the constitutional law by suspending parliament without good reason. The rule of law applies to everyone.
It's not as simple as pointing to a single law, it's about denying parliament its sovereignty which is a fundamental aspect of our constitution. The suspension “had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.”
It's a good thing. It means a rogue government can't shut down our elected parliament because it's inconvenient. Imagine Labour was elected and then Corbyn wanted to shut down parliament to allow him to seize company or personal assets. We'd be grateful for the law saying 'nope, you can't stop parliament having a say in this'.
The government can still deliver what the people voted for, but they have to do it legally.
The real reason progress on brexit is being blocked is because the Tories can't control their MPs and May and then Boris have destroyed their majority. If they had a majority they could pretty much do what they want and get it through the Commons (as is normally the case in most normal governments).
Well let's have a GE then, and see if we can get government with a majority to actually govern the country and sort bexit out one way or another, and not have unelected people like Gina Miller calling the shots.
Well let's have a GE then, and see if we can get government with a majority to actually govern the country and sort bexit out one way or another, and not have unelected people like Gina Miller calling the shots.
She hasn’t called the shots, the Supreme Court has. Bit of a difference...
There’ll be a GE as soon as Johnson is prevented from leaving with no deal.
Well let's have a GE then, and see if we can get government with a majority to actually govern the country and sort bexit out one way or another, and not have unelected people like Gina Miller calling the shots.
Well yeah, but Joris needs to ask for an extension first and has to be found dead in a ditch before he can ask, so therefor no election.
My prediction from three years ago, the one that ECB said would never happen, is slowly becoming a reality. GE with Lib Dem’s campaigning on a revoke or second referendum will see a huge swing and another hung a parliament. Goodnight Bohnson and Corbyn and the DUP.
‘……. like a moth to Itchy’s flame ……’
It’s quite obvious for all to see who the hysterical are....
..... as for May’s deal being blocked by remainers - Joris Bohnson was at the heart of the revolt and quit the cabinet over it you bulb.
You have to stop blaming remoaners for the mess your lot have dragged us in to. ðŸ‘
Parliament passed legislation that we would leave on the date deal or no deal. Brussels, with the help of the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, SNP and Plaid Cymru (shamefully), presented a deal which they knew the DUP couldn't agree to and many Brexiteers couldn't live with...this was deliberate, part of the playbook.
...couple this appalling deal with the opposition parties who said they would respect the referendum and said they wanted a soft Brexit and then didn't vote for the deal which would have enshrined a soft Brexit and what have you got?
A Parliament that won't pass a deal (3 times!) = no deal
...but the masterplan was always to take us here and then reverse the referendum result. Unfortunately for you lot the public aren't stupid, we're all wide awake, and we're not swallowing this shiit. If you believe otherwise support a General Election ASAP, get on to your local Labour Party and demand that they lobby for a General Election. If the 'Remain' parties don't want a General Election it is obvious why isn't it.
Well let's have a GE then, and see if we can get government with a majority to actually govern the country and sort bexit out one way or another, and not have unelected people like Gina Miller calling the shots.
There's no guarantee a GE will unlock parliament of course. The last one made matters worse in that respect.
Personally, I'd prefer a referendum rather than using a GE as a proxy referendum (that may or may not actually work as such). But another ref may not unlock anything either - another leave win and we're back to square one in the parliament battling out between the 'dealers' and 'no-dealers'.
There's no guarantee a GE will unlock parliament of course. The last one made matters worse in that respect.
Personally, I'd prefer a referendum rather than using a GE as a proxy referendum (that may or may not actually work as such). But another ref may not unlock anything either - another leave win and we're back to square one in the parliament battling out between the 'dealers' and 'no-dealers'.
It's a mess.
...and now we have people who argued that referendums were a mistake and wished we never had one arguing for a referendum because they know that a General Election will see the liars kicked out of Parliament and a majority of Brexit supporting MPs take over. The 'Remainers' would then have no power to stop Brexit.
Lying, cheating, bast*rds. They can't run forever though, the MPs must face the public.
Parliament passed legislation that we would leave on the date deal or no deal. Brussels, with the help of the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, SNP and Plaid Cymru (shamefully), presented a deal which they knew the DUP couldn't agree to and many Brexiteers couldn't live with...this was deliberate, part of the playbook.
...couple this appalling deal with the opposition parties who said they would respect the referendum and said they wanted a soft Brexit and then didn't vote for the deal which would have enshrined a soft Brexit and what have you got?
A Parliament that won't pass a deal (3 times!) = no deal
...but the masterplan was always to take us here and then reverse the referendum result. Unfortunately for you lot the public aren't stupid, we're all wide awake, and we're not swallowing this shiit. If you believe otherwise support a General Election ASAP, get on to your local Labour Party and demand that they lobby for a General Election. If the 'Remain' parties don't want a General Election it is obvious why isn't it.
Stop pretending we live in a democracy anymore.
This process is exactly what democracy is - parliament, government and the judiciary checks and balances each other.
As for the other parties opposing government policy, you know they're called the opposion right?
This process is exactly what democracy is - parliament, government and the judiciary checks and balances each other.
As for the other parties opposing government policy, you know they're called the opposion right?
[Post edited 25 Sep 2019 12:02]
Which law did the government break? No?
The Judiciary is not supposed to be involved in politics in this country, it is vital that it is entirely separate. How come the Attorney General, the English High Court and the Northern Irish High Court, and the Speaker of the House all agreed that Prorogation was constitutionally legal, based on precedent…
...yet the Supreme Court (set up under the Blair government) has decided to ditch precedent and write NEW law?
Let's have your explanation as to why this was necessary on this occasion.
You lot realise that the public isn't buying this shite right. You realise we can see clearly that the 'Remainer' MPs are trying to turn this country into their dictatorship right? Think I'm wrong? Let's have an election.
There will be consequences for your side afterwards.
The Judiciary is not supposed to be involved in politics in this country, it is vital that it is entirely separate. How come the Attorney General, the English High Court and the Northern Irish High Court, and the Speaker of the House all agreed that Prorogation was constitutionally legal, based on precedent…
...yet the Supreme Court (set up under the Blair government) has decided to ditch precedent and write NEW law?
Let's have your explanation as to why this was necessary on this occasion.
You lot realise that the public isn't buying this shite right. You realise we can see clearly that the 'Remainer' MPs are trying to turn this country into their dictatorship right? Think I'm wrong? Let's have an election.
There will be consequences for your side afterwards.
The decision made was that the prorogation was unlawful.
If the courts can't rule on the government, who can? There has to be those checks.
The decision made was that the prorogation was unlawful.
If the courts can't rule on the government, who can? There has to be those checks.
What law did they break? Why did the Supreme Court feel the need to write new law? Nobody is buying it. There will be consequences following a General Election.
Judges don't have anymore right to be dictators than MPs. Face the public.
What law did they break? Why did the Supreme Court feel the need to write new law? Nobody is buying it. There will be consequences following a General Election.
Judges don't have anymore right to be dictators than MPs. Face the public.
We're in unprecedented times.
The prorogation was challenged and judgement was passed. Watching the HoC now it seems that all sides are agreeing that we now have clarity going forward when it comes to such matters.
The me this looks like the system is effective.
Suggesting that judges (particularly the SC jusges) are dictators or are biased/have an agenda is tin-hattery of the highest order.
"British courts for British people" (but only if they interpret the law in a way that suits me...)
What law did they break? Why did the Supreme Court feel the need to write new law? Nobody is buying it. There will be consequences following a General Election.
Judges don't have anymore right to be dictators than MPs. Face the public.
Take it to the European court of justice.
Oh, hang on...
Planet Swans Prediction League Winner Season 2013-14. Runner up 2014_15.
The prorogation was challenged and judgement was passed. Watching the HoC now it seems that all sides are agreeing that we now have clarity going forward when it comes to such matters.
The me this looks like the system is effective.
Suggesting that judges (particularly the SC jusges) are dictators or are biased/have an agenda is tin-hattery of the highest order.
"British courts for British people" (but only if they interpret the law in a way that suits me...)
[Post edited 25 Sep 2019 12:39]
British courts for British justice not British courts for British politics. Not hard is it.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
