Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK 23:28 - Nov 10 with 1128759 viewspikeypaul



And like a typical anti democracy remoaner he decided the will of the people should be ignored the minute the democratic result was in total fecking hypocrite 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Despite it being voted in to law by the commons the spineless two faced remoaner MPs have totally abandoned any morals and decided to ignore the will of the British people.

It will be remembered and no election or referendum will ever be the same again in this country.

The one thing that will come is a massive surge in the popularity of UKIP or a similar party in the future who stand for the 52%.

Happy Days.

[Post edited 29 Mar 4:37]

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
Poll: Where wil Judas be sitting when we play Millwall?

0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 14:54 - Sep 11 with 645 viewslondonlisa2001

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 14:44 - Sep 11 by wobbly

It’s a junior court selected through forum shopping to make a political point by 80 remainer, opposition MPs. That will be inevitably summarily dismissed by a real court next week.

In the meantime, we are to put up with days of anguish by the commentariart that MPs have been ’unlawfully’ denied the opportunity to play dominoes, naval gaze and sort out their belly button fluff in pointless parliamentary session until the grown up judges come along and everyone moves on to the next level of anguish.

The very definition of tiresome.


No. It’s not. That is simply wrong. The court of session is the Supreme (civil) Court of Scotland.

Which is the country where the ‘unlawful act’ took place by the way. And the reason it was brought there was because the High Court in England was not sitting at that time.

I tell you what is tiresome. People presenting prejudice as fact to influence those who know no better.
And the other thing that is tiresome, is this government, backed by its braying supporters, who previously pretended they gave a shit about democracy, process and the sovereignty of the British legal system and the UK parliament, attempting to ride roughshod over anything that gets in its way.

I’d be interested to know if your view on a Corbyn government doing something similar would be that a court holding it to account was being ‘tiresome’.
1
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 15:06 - Sep 11 with 625 viewssherpajacob

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 14:52 - Sep 11 by Kilkennyjack

Lock Boris Up
Lock Mogg Up


It's the right wing swivel eyed ERG type loons that want capital punishment brought back for treason against the crown.

Maybe we should indulge them.

Poll: Your favourite ever Swans shirt sponsor?

0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 15:08 - Sep 11 with 621 viewswobbly

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 14:54 - Sep 11 by londonlisa2001

No. It’s not. That is simply wrong. The court of session is the Supreme (civil) Court of Scotland.

Which is the country where the ‘unlawful act’ took place by the way. And the reason it was brought there was because the High Court in England was not sitting at that time.

I tell you what is tiresome. People presenting prejudice as fact to influence those who know no better.
And the other thing that is tiresome, is this government, backed by its braying supporters, who previously pretended they gave a shit about democracy, process and the sovereignty of the British legal system and the UK parliament, attempting to ride roughshod over anything that gets in its way.

I’d be interested to know if your view on a Corbyn government doing something similar would be that a court holding it to account was being ‘tiresome’.


That’s nonsense and you know it.

What exactly do you want parliament to do. What is poroguing stopping? The law was passed to stop no deal. You mentioned getting yellowhammer? So what? We can’t leave with no deal anyway under the current law. So yellowhammer is redundant.

Under current parliamentary arithmetic, the only way to change the law is to have an election and parliament voted against that too.

If Boris tried to circumvent that law with arch interpretation of that law, I would be the first to back the Scottish court or any other real court stop him from doing that. But this stuff on the lawfulness of prorogation is not the bold upholding of the rule of constitutional law. It’s a sideshow. As I expect the Supreme Court to rule next week.

If the real Court rules otherwise next week then I’d be I) damn surprised and 2) prepared to admit I’ve got this wrong. Will you admit the same?
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 15:31 - Sep 11 with 586 viewsHighjack

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 14:49 - Sep 11 by Kilkennyjack



Can a civil court send people to prison?

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Poll: The official planetswans European election poll. Your vote goes to?

0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 15:36 - Sep 11 with 577 viewslondonlisa2001

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 15:08 - Sep 11 by wobbly

That’s nonsense and you know it.

What exactly do you want parliament to do. What is poroguing stopping? The law was passed to stop no deal. You mentioned getting yellowhammer? So what? We can’t leave with no deal anyway under the current law. So yellowhammer is redundant.

Under current parliamentary arithmetic, the only way to change the law is to have an election and parliament voted against that too.

If Boris tried to circumvent that law with arch interpretation of that law, I would be the first to back the Scottish court or any other real court stop him from doing that. But this stuff on the lawfulness of prorogation is not the bold upholding of the rule of constitutional law. It’s a sideshow. As I expect the Supreme Court to rule next week.

If the real Court rules otherwise next week then I’d be I) damn surprised and 2) prepared to admit I’ve got this wrong. Will you admit the same?


Yellowhammer isn’t redundant. Don’t be ridiculous.

And we can still leave with no deal. Have a read of the act that was passed. It only means we can’t leave with no deal without parliamentary consent on 31 October.

When there is a general election, we could still leave with no deal. Don’t you think the public have the right to know what that would mean? The fact the government are today saying they don’t want to release yellowhammer because it would make Brexit less likely shows you the farce we are in. It will be released, I’m sure. I can’t see a way they could stop the Scottish or Welsh parliaments releasing it to be honest.

I have already said I expect the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, so what would I be apologising for? I am merely pointing out that the ruling today is not a sideshow. Your view that a Scottish court is not a ‘real court’ is interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

I thought you said previously you were in the law? What the f*** do you do in the law that makes you believe the law is irrelevant?
1
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 15:57 - Sep 11 with 555 viewswobbly

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 15:36 - Sep 11 by londonlisa2001

Yellowhammer isn’t redundant. Don’t be ridiculous.

And we can still leave with no deal. Have a read of the act that was passed. It only means we can’t leave with no deal without parliamentary consent on 31 October.

When there is a general election, we could still leave with no deal. Don’t you think the public have the right to know what that would mean? The fact the government are today saying they don’t want to release yellowhammer because it would make Brexit less likely shows you the farce we are in. It will be released, I’m sure. I can’t see a way they could stop the Scottish or Welsh parliaments releasing it to be honest.

I have already said I expect the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, so what would I be apologising for? I am merely pointing out that the ruling today is not a sideshow. Your view that a Scottish court is not a ‘real court’ is interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

I thought you said previously you were in the law? What the f*** do you do in the law that makes you believe the law is irrelevant?


That’s all a bit of a mish mash of confusion, isn’t it.

I said yellowhammer was redundant in terms of Parliament spending its time usefully getting it ‘released’, which is one thing you suggested Parliament could do if it hadn’t been ‘unlawfully’ prorogued. But it’s also yet another completely meaningless exercise over the next 5 weeks as there is no legal means that yellowhammer has any relevance to us before Parliament returns on 15 October. And even after that as at some point Boris is going to have to face up to what that Act says and get an extension.

What else do you worry that Parliament could waste time on in the meantime?

As a lawyer, I know well how you forum shop to get a ruling. That’s what has happened today in my humble opinion. And next week the Supreme Court will demonstrate that the prime minister has acted entirely lawfully in doing what many many prime ministers have done before. This is not a slow moving coup.

Everything over the next few days is noise, anguish and therefore my conclusion inevitably is that it’s a sideshow. It’s not actually unlawful just because a bunch of judges in a court that is subservient to the Supreme Court, sitting in a jurisdiction I and you don’t reside in, operating under a different legal system, says so. In what appears an extraordinary, interpretive reach by those judges according to the summary I have read. This is Ii. a starkly, diametrically different conclusion to the High Court in London on largely the same facts, in a judgement I have read, and that I believe based on my experience is sound.

The Supreme Court will rule as such next week, as you agree. If the SUpreme Court does say otherwise, then I reserve the right to change my mind in the face of evidence. But right now, neither of us think that is going to happen.

I don’t think the law is irrelevant. But in this matter, i do think Scottish law and courts are. And I reserve the right to be a little rude calling a Scottish court not a real court, mainly because it annoys the Scots. And you it seems.
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 16:19 - Sep 11 with 530 viewslondonlisa2001

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 15:57 - Sep 11 by wobbly

That’s all a bit of a mish mash of confusion, isn’t it.

I said yellowhammer was redundant in terms of Parliament spending its time usefully getting it ‘released’, which is one thing you suggested Parliament could do if it hadn’t been ‘unlawfully’ prorogued. But it’s also yet another completely meaningless exercise over the next 5 weeks as there is no legal means that yellowhammer has any relevance to us before Parliament returns on 15 October. And even after that as at some point Boris is going to have to face up to what that Act says and get an extension.

What else do you worry that Parliament could waste time on in the meantime?

As a lawyer, I know well how you forum shop to get a ruling. That’s what has happened today in my humble opinion. And next week the Supreme Court will demonstrate that the prime minister has acted entirely lawfully in doing what many many prime ministers have done before. This is not a slow moving coup.

Everything over the next few days is noise, anguish and therefore my conclusion inevitably is that it’s a sideshow. It’s not actually unlawful just because a bunch of judges in a court that is subservient to the Supreme Court, sitting in a jurisdiction I and you don’t reside in, operating under a different legal system, says so. In what appears an extraordinary, interpretive reach by those judges according to the summary I have read. This is Ii. a starkly, diametrically different conclusion to the High Court in London on largely the same facts, in a judgement I have read, and that I believe based on my experience is sound.

The Supreme Court will rule as such next week, as you agree. If the SUpreme Court does say otherwise, then I reserve the right to change my mind in the face of evidence. But right now, neither of us think that is going to happen.

I don’t think the law is irrelevant. But in this matter, i do think Scottish law and courts are. And I reserve the right to be a little rude calling a Scottish court not a real court, mainly because it annoys the Scots. And you it seems.


As I said previously, I used yellowhammer as an example of what parliament may want to do, but as I also said, it matters not whether parliament wants to spend 4 weeks playing cards, it’s the principle that is important.

Separate actions were launched in all three jurisdictions - England (and Wales), Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The reason that the Scottish court has a different opinion (at this stage) to the High court is not ‘surprising because it was based in the same facts’ but unsurprising in that the Scottish court has different precedent. That doesn’t mean it’s an overreach, it means the basis on which they have made a ruling is different. As you well know. That doesn’t make it a court that is any less real than the High Court.

As I have now said twice, I expect the Supreme Court to make a different ruling as they are bound by the precedent in both countries, not just one. That doesn’t make it ‘more correct’ as such, it doesn’t make the Scottish decision ‘wrong’. The UK parliament has done something which, at present, has been ruled lawful in England and unlawful in Scotland. Whether or not it is lawful in the UK has yet to be determined.

And many many prime ministers have not done this. None have. The interesting part of the ruling of the High Court is that they have stated that a government is able to prorogue for ‘political advantage’. That’s extraordinary if upheld by the Supreme Court. What’s to stop a Corbyn type of the future using such a mechanism to enforce renationalisation against the will of parliament?

There’s rather too much of doing things because it ‘annoys’ significant parts of the population at present. In my humble opinion of course. Because it sets a dangerous precedent that one day, will come and bite the people who think it’s fine when it supports their political view point, right on their over entitled arse.
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 16:27 - Sep 11 with 512 viewswaynekerr55

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 16:19 - Sep 11 by londonlisa2001

As I said previously, I used yellowhammer as an example of what parliament may want to do, but as I also said, it matters not whether parliament wants to spend 4 weeks playing cards, it’s the principle that is important.

Separate actions were launched in all three jurisdictions - England (and Wales), Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The reason that the Scottish court has a different opinion (at this stage) to the High court is not ‘surprising because it was based in the same facts’ but unsurprising in that the Scottish court has different precedent. That doesn’t mean it’s an overreach, it means the basis on which they have made a ruling is different. As you well know. That doesn’t make it a court that is any less real than the High Court.

As I have now said twice, I expect the Supreme Court to make a different ruling as they are bound by the precedent in both countries, not just one. That doesn’t make it ‘more correct’ as such, it doesn’t make the Scottish decision ‘wrong’. The UK parliament has done something which, at present, has been ruled lawful in England and unlawful in Scotland. Whether or not it is lawful in the UK has yet to be determined.

And many many prime ministers have not done this. None have. The interesting part of the ruling of the High Court is that they have stated that a government is able to prorogue for ‘political advantage’. That’s extraordinary if upheld by the Supreme Court. What’s to stop a Corbyn type of the future using such a mechanism to enforce renationalisation against the will of parliament?

There’s rather too much of doing things because it ‘annoys’ significant parts of the population at present. In my humble opinion of course. Because it sets a dangerous precedent that one day, will come and bite the people who think it’s fine when it supports their political view point, right on their over entitled arse.


The saying "be careful for what you wish for" rings true here, as it does for the demand for personal comms.

Extraordinary times we live in

How many of you know what DP stands for?
Poll: Should Darran and ECB be mods again?
Blog: Too many things for a title, but stop with the xenophobia accusations!

0
Login to get fewer ads


Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 16:48 - Sep 11 with 489 viewsA_Fans_Dad

londonlisa2001 16:19 - Sep 11
"And many many prime ministers have not done this. None have. The interesting part of the ruling of the High Court is that they have stated that a government is able to prorogue for ‘political advantage’. "
"None Have", for political advantage?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-questions_affair

You don't consider Proroguing Government to try and supress an enquiry as for political advantage?

ps I just found another one that is similar to Johnson's.
In 1948, the Labour Party prime minister prorogued parliament in order to silence House of Lords opposition to a law that would have reduced its powers.
[Post edited 11 Sep 16:58]
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 17:47 - Sep 11 with 431 viewsbluey_the_blue

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 16:48 - Sep 11 by A_Fans_Dad

londonlisa2001 16:19 - Sep 11
"And many many prime ministers have not done this. None have. The interesting part of the ruling of the High Court is that they have stated that a government is able to prorogue for ‘political advantage’. "
"None Have", for political advantage?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-questions_affair

You don't consider Proroguing Government to try and supress an enquiry as for political advantage?

ps I just found another one that is similar to Johnson's.
In 1948, the Labour Party prime minister prorogued parliament in order to silence House of Lords opposition to a law that would have reduced its powers.
[Post edited 11 Sep 16:58]


Yeah, but those weren't by BoJo though so clearly don't count.

Cherry et al went the Scottish route rather than joining the Miller case hoping to find a more favourable court. On appeal, that worked and she's now got what SNP really wanted - UK supreme court overrule scottish court, the "FREEEEEDOM" chants start up again as Scottish judiciary overruled.

The whole mantra appears to be "illegal as lied to Queen", ignoring the fact no reason needs to be given to the Queen. Not read full court ruling yet as just got back but I'd love to know what actual real law was allegedly broken.
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 17:59 - Sep 11 with 415 viewsmonmouth

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 17:47 - Sep 11 by bluey_the_blue

Yeah, but those weren't by BoJo though so clearly don't count.

Cherry et al went the Scottish route rather than joining the Miller case hoping to find a more favourable court. On appeal, that worked and she's now got what SNP really wanted - UK supreme court overrule scottish court, the "FREEEEEDOM" chants start up again as Scottish judiciary overruled.

The whole mantra appears to be "illegal as lied to Queen", ignoring the fact no reason needs to be given to the Queen. Not read full court ruling yet as just got back but I'd love to know what actual real law was allegedly broken.


It wasn’t allegedly broken, it was broken. That’s why the unanimous judgement was made. Johnson broke Scottish law. That’s it.

Whether he broke UK law is another question (doubt it, but it is a bloody dangerous precedent as Lisa points out...I wouldn’t want any govt to be able to do this...so I really hope it is found an illegal use of power, but it’s more about our non existent constitution that allows rich entitled tw@ts and shysters on all sides to do anything they want).

Oh, If you’re happy for UK law to override Scottish law, why not Uk law being overridden by EU law? Too busy shouting ‘freeeeeedom’ as we go down the shitter are you?
[Post edited 11 Sep 18:00]

Poll: TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote

0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:08 - Sep 11 with 408 viewsWarwickHunt

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 16:48 - Sep 11 by A_Fans_Dad

londonlisa2001 16:19 - Sep 11
"And many many prime ministers have not done this. None have. The interesting part of the ruling of the High Court is that they have stated that a government is able to prorogue for ‘political advantage’. "
"None Have", for political advantage?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-questions_affair

You don't consider Proroguing Government to try and supress an enquiry as for political advantage?

ps I just found another one that is similar to Johnson's.
In 1948, the Labour Party prime minister prorogued parliament in order to silence House of Lords opposition to a law that would have reduced its powers.
[Post edited 11 Sep 16:58]


Three sessions were required to amend the 1911 Parliament Act to stop the unelected House of Lords using their powers to stop the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry in 1948.
One session was shortened to allow this.

Iron and steel. WWII. Do you want me to join the dots for you?

Not quite the same as Johnson’s sordid plan...
0

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:11 - Sep 11 with 401 viewsperchrockjack

I am with Tom Watson.

Have a referendum where people are fully aware of the consequences .

Bin this feckn Brexit bollox

Poll: Who has left Wales and why

1
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:12 - Sep 11 with 400 viewsbluey_the_blue

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 17:59 - Sep 11 by monmouth

It wasn’t allegedly broken, it was broken. That’s why the unanimous judgement was made. Johnson broke Scottish law. That’s it.

Whether he broke UK law is another question (doubt it, but it is a bloody dangerous precedent as Lisa points out...I wouldn’t want any govt to be able to do this...so I really hope it is found an illegal use of power, but it’s more about our non existent constitution that allows rich entitled tw@ts and shysters on all sides to do anything they want).

Oh, If you’re happy for UK law to override Scottish law, why not Uk law being overridden by EU law? Too busy shouting ‘freeeeeedom’ as we go down the shitter are you?
[Post edited 11 Sep 18:00]


Scottish law, in this instance, undermines UK law by making a political decision.

As I said, SNP will be delighted when it's rightly shot down.

Again, what law in precise detail was broken?
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:16 - Sep 11 with 388 viewsexiledclaseboy

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:12 - Sep 11 by bluey_the_blue

Scottish law, in this instance, undermines UK law by making a political decision.

As I said, SNP will be delighted when it's rightly shot down.

Again, what law in precise detail was broken?


There won’t be a specific law as in clause four of some act or other. Constitutional law doesn’t work that way.
[Post edited 11 Sep 18:17]

Poll: Tory leader

0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:22 - Sep 11 with 375 viewsbluey_the_blue

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:16 - Sep 11 by exiledclaseboy

There won’t be a specific law as in clause four of some act or other. Constitutional law doesn’t work that way.
[Post edited 11 Sep 18:17]


Agree, the point however is what is the rationale?

A PM cannot "ask" the Queen for Parliament to be prorogued? Doesn't have to spell out any reason... could ask her because he was told by a friendly ghost, the rationale is irrelevant, a political decision not legal.

The decision by Cherry et al to persue the case in Scotland was entirely political in nature.
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:22 - Sep 11 with 376 viewsLeonWasGod

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 17:47 - Sep 11 by bluey_the_blue

Yeah, but those weren't by BoJo though so clearly don't count.

Cherry et al went the Scottish route rather than joining the Miller case hoping to find a more favourable court. On appeal, that worked and she's now got what SNP really wanted - UK supreme court overrule scottish court, the "FREEEEEDOM" chants start up again as Scottish judiciary overruled.

The whole mantra appears to be "illegal as lied to Queen", ignoring the fact no reason needs to be given to the Queen. Not read full court ruling yet as just got back but I'd love to know what actual real law was allegedly broken.


I know you’re being flippant, but that’s obviously silly. It’s not a race to the bottom where whataboutery can be used to justify illegal acts. And you know it (or at least I hope you do).

This government are doing anything they can to circumvent the law, or simply ignore it as this judgemt proves. If anyone actually believes in ‘sovereignty’, ‘taking back control’, ‘making our own decisions’, etc., they should be worried about (or at least questioning) what Boris/Cummings are doing. It goes beyond the EU issue.

People complain about politicians lying and being out of touch with normal people. Well never has a PM lied to this degree, and he and his advisor have absolutely nothing in common with most of us. This isn’t about political allegencies any more. Other Tories who don’t break the law and lie repeatedly are available (also including those who don’t threaten their partners, spread hate through their lucrative media contracts, have a track record of fecking up and wasting public money, etc., etc).

You’re not defending conservatism by backing Johnson; this is something much darker.
3
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:31 - Sep 11 with 361 viewsexiledclaseboy

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:22 - Sep 11 by bluey_the_blue

Agree, the point however is what is the rationale?

A PM cannot "ask" the Queen for Parliament to be prorogued? Doesn't have to spell out any reason... could ask her because he was told by a friendly ghost, the rationale is irrelevant, a political decision not legal.

The decision by Cherry et al to persue the case in Scotland was entirely political in nature.


I don’t know where your getting this “doesn’t have to give a reason” thing from. The Queen acts on the advice of the privy council, in effect the PM.

The case has been pursued in all three separate legal realms in the UK. Everyone involved would have been fully aware that the final arbiter was going to be the UK Supreme Court.

Poll: Tory leader

0

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:34 - Sep 11 with 355 viewsexiledclaseboy

Seeing as prorogation had the exact opposite effect to that intended by Johnson and Cummings anyway, they’re probably beginning to wish they hadn’t bothered. F*cking eejits.

Poll: Tory leader

0

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:48 - Sep 11 with 329 viewsHighjack

Forget about brexit. It’s irrelevant. Fireman Sam has been sacked and Norman Price is still on the loose.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Poll: The official planetswans European election poll. Your vote goes to?

1

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:49 - Sep 11 with 327 viewsrockinjk

The problem with the Court case is that leave have been so radicalised they will see a legal ruling as a remainer plot

The slippery slope continues
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:50 - Sep 11 with 326 viewslondonlisa2001

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 16:48 - Sep 11 by A_Fans_Dad

londonlisa2001 16:19 - Sep 11
"And many many prime ministers have not done this. None have. The interesting part of the ruling of the High Court is that they have stated that a government is able to prorogue for ‘political advantage’. "
"None Have", for political advantage?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-questions_affair

You don't consider Proroguing Government to try and supress an enquiry as for political advantage?

ps I just found another one that is similar to Johnson's.
In 1948, the Labour Party prime minister prorogued parliament in order to silence House of Lords opposition to a law that would have reduced its powers.
[Post edited 11 Sep 16:58]


You’re conflating two different point I made and attempting to say I have said something different.

I said ‘many, many prime ministers have not done this’.

Separately, I mentioned a point I find interesting about the High Court ruling.

What many many prime ministers have not done is pretended both to the country and, it appears, to the Monarch, to prorogue parliament for one reason while admitting in writing they have done so for a different reason. The length of the prorogation is also extraordinary.

The reason I find the High Court judgement interesting is its explicit reference to the use of prorogation for purely political advantage.
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:54 - Sep 11 with 310 viewsrockinjk

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:50 - Sep 11 by londonlisa2001

You’re conflating two different point I made and attempting to say I have said something different.

I said ‘many, many prime ministers have not done this’.

Separately, I mentioned a point I find interesting about the High Court ruling.

What many many prime ministers have not done is pretended both to the country and, it appears, to the Monarch, to prorogue parliament for one reason while admitting in writing they have done so for a different reason. The length of the prorogation is also extraordinary.

The reason I find the High Court judgement interesting is its explicit reference to the use of prorogation for purely political advantage.


Correct.

It’s not the prorogation it’s the reason for doing so.

Everyone knows that this has been done to shut Parliament down. There is no question that this unprecedented when you consider what we about to do.

You’d think Parliament would be open day and night at the moment. Not shut down.

If leavers could take the blinkers off for once they would agree
2
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:55 - Sep 11 with 304 viewslondonlisa2001

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 17:47 - Sep 11 by bluey_the_blue

Yeah, but those weren't by BoJo though so clearly don't count.

Cherry et al went the Scottish route rather than joining the Miller case hoping to find a more favourable court. On appeal, that worked and she's now got what SNP really wanted - UK supreme court overrule scottish court, the "FREEEEEDOM" chants start up again as Scottish judiciary overruled.

The whole mantra appears to be "illegal as lied to Queen", ignoring the fact no reason needs to be given to the Queen. Not read full court ruling yet as just got back but I'd love to know what actual real law was allegedly broken.


You’re just making stuff up.

Separate cases were launched in the separate jurisdictions of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

And you’ve made up the bit about advice to the Queen as well.
0
Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:58 - Sep 11 with 290 viewslondonlisa2001

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 18:12 - Sep 11 by bluey_the_blue

Scottish law, in this instance, undermines UK law by making a political decision.

As I said, SNP will be delighted when it's rightly shot down.

Again, what law in precise detail was broken?


Nothing has been undermined.

A case has been brought against actions which so far have been found lawful in England and unlawful in Scotland.

Read the ruling.
0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2019