Brilliant Geoff!!:D
Printable View
Brilliant Geoff!!:D
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by GeoffB
It would be funny if he could, but in this sphere of the law the ECJ doesn't have jurisdiction.
Interesting that, like most people in prison, he disagrees with the judgement of the court.
:):):)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
Plenty disagree with the court decision.
The Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls for example.
Even Lord Sumption, a now retired Supreme Court Judge on Radio 4 this morning thought tthey had made an error.
It was a decision that nobody saw coming.
It has made new law.
There are some unusual inconsistences in the judgement as highlighted by some of the pieces written and comments made.
Paragraph 58 the judges advise they are not interested in the PM's motives.
Paragraph 61 they advise that they cannot find a good reason to prorogue.
That sounds like a judgement on motive.
It seems like a no-brainer to me. If the PM can shut down parliament whenever he/she wants, this is a route to effectively remove them from the process of running the country. I don't think that should be allowed.
It's interesting that people are seeing this through largely partisan brexit-or not eyes. I can only imagine how offended you would be WP if Jeremy Corbyn were trying to remove parliament from the process while trying to achieve some aims with which you didn't approve.
Spot on Noel - well said!!
Justice prevails - democracy actual exists for once :D
edit: just for the record (not interested in any more insults or personal attacks thank you very much) I have been thinking about this whole situation and my instinct tells me that Article 50 is going to end up being revoked, we will stay as things are, this whole thing will have been one big money making farce!
Judges overrule the people, democracy is dead!
I give you Boris........and the Clash!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0pTpwqkB48
Actually Noel I'm not looking at it in a partisan way. I think it's made little or no difference to the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
However, one of the reasons why legal and constitutional experts didn't expect this to go the way it was is that Parliament has already had the ability at anytime previously to control the prorogation process.
For example, Major prorogued to block (although he denies it was the common perception) the publishing of a report in 1997 and extended the period to the General Election, none of the successive Governments have EVER tried to put forward an Act that for example said
"A Government is only allowed to prorogue for a maximum 14 day period in any calendar year, without requesting specific permission by a vote in the House."
The reason is quite simple. Most Governments have a majority and do not want to water down the options available to them.
Minority Governments are rare and are usually don't last long without a no-confidence vote.
We may now see a future Government look at this and actually put in to law a procedure and parameters for prorogation.
Is it even needed? Now that the judgement has been given, no-one would it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I'm sorry, where exactly did the judges overrule the people? All I'm aware of is that the Supreme Court overruled Johnson.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
Second what Noel said...
I’m not interested in insults or personal attacks either. But I would contest your view that democracy is existing especially when you think that article 50 will be revoked. In fact I agree that this is what a majority in this parliament want. But not sure how that is consistent with democracy. The reverse I would say.Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerMouse
The judgement still leaves a lot unanswered.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
The Government wants to give a Queen's Speech.
How long can the prorogue? 5 weeks has been deemed too much. If they Prorogue tomorrow and reopen on 7th October is that allowed? Will there be a further legal challenge?
I am all for respectful discussion and disagreement Muddy Retriever!!
When the discussion resorts to insults and ridicule the offending party has already lost and there is nothing more to discuss, it's a waste of time and I won't lower myself to that level, I've done it before and it never ends well, this is why I left this discussion earlier.
Questions and challenges in the manner you raised them are 100% welcome and good - thank you :)
I understand perfectly that the vote was to leave and that many people see the only way democracy can be honoured is to fulfil that objective and leave - as the people asked for.
Unfortunately, I challenge the very premise on which this result was achieved, it was based on lies and misrepresentation. Now the truth, or at least something more akin to the truth, is more readily accessible, I feel that if the public were asked again the result would be quite different.
I firmly believe that democracy was not honoured in the referendum in the first place, everything that has happened since is all based on a false premise.
I am more than happy for us to respectfully disagree - that's okay - good even :)
I’ve never known an election where both sides didn’t lie to some extent. For example in the 2005 campaign Gordon Brown said that the Tories planned to cut public expenditure. This wasn’t true, they had pledged to increase it but just not as much as Labour were promising. It was a lie but did that invalidate the 2005 election result?Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerMouse
In the referendum the Remain side were just as disingenuous as Leave if not more so. Remember the 500k to 800k job loss prediction that would happen if we simply voted to Leave?
Absolutely - I totally agree!
But two wrongs don't make a right!
I think I have mentioned this before, on a deeper level I think our system of government is fundamentally broken and we are in desperate need for reform.
Johnson is simply trying to implement the result of the referendum which the government seem intent on overturning, the courts are assisting them to that end.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffB
Soubry,Corbyn,Abbot,Sturgeon,Swinson,McDonnell, Miller and their remainer pals all say they believe in democracy but refuse to accept the result of one of the,if not the, biggest democratic votes this country has ever had.
Hypocrites the lot of them.
So what would be the point of another referendum. If the losing side gets to demand a rerun by saying the other side lied? That could go on for ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerMouse
The truth is that a hardcore of remainers don’t want another referendum because they think Leave lied. They want it because they didn’t get their way and want to reverse the outcome. Indeed the Libdems don’t even want the inconvenience of a referendum any more. A straight forward revocation will do now.
Certainly one of the biggest, definitely not the biggest. Apparently you should go with “the largest mandate for anything in British political history”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Llani Boy
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-refer...atic-exercise/
As you were.
Heheh yep - hence my assertion that our systems are broken - it's clearly not working is it :)
I don't know what the answer is, I just know it's not this because I only feel profound embarrassment - I keep apologising to all my friends around the world.
Like it or not, the general consensus is that we as a nation are a laughing-stock - well that combined with shock and dismay. Maybe this says more about myself and my friends, but I am not hearing anyone saying anything else.
I guess there will be some European folk celebrating us leaving thinking it is a fantastic idea, maybe?
I would love to contribute to this thread, but I have lost the will to argue or even say anything at all.
Correct. Leave would have won by more but for the lies and misrepresentation from the Remain side, especially the Treasury.Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerMouse
I am quite sure I don't need to say this, as it is abundantly clear, but I respectfully assert that this misquotation is in no way representative of what I believe or my intention when I wrote it.
I have long been uncertain what my position is, I tend towards remain but there is so much uncertainty, but if you are a good representation of the kind of people who want to leave WP, you're doing an excellent job of convincing me to be a solid remainer!
Thank you :D
I quoted you verbatim. I may have done it in such a way to distort the context and of course I was being playful, but there's one of the problems we face now day to day and we have to manage this as it happens all over the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerMouse
Liam Fox is often quoted as saying "....this would be the easiest trade deal in history..." but he actually said "should" and that makes a world of difference.
Owen Patterson is often quoted as saying that of course we would never leave the Single Market and there is a 3-4 second snippet often used in Remain montages saying that.
In the 6 minute interview on Sky News, he said we would leave the Single Market several times, but that would not mean we would be leaving the market entirely, and that we would still trade with the EU.
Looking at the campaign I like to think I can disseminate what was accurate, what was let's say stretched and what is a complete whopper.
Not everyone feels able to of course, but that goes for politics generally.
You have to be careful as opinions are voiced during the campaign on all sides. An opinion might be wrong at the time, might be proven to be incorrect in the future, but at the time it could be held and communicated in good faith.
I look back at both sides of the referendum and identify issues with both sides that I disagreed with, or technical points particularly on trade matters where I contested the points made by both leave and remain campaigners, because I have a background there and could see they were not as well briefed as they might have been.
I'm not sure you can see both sides. Certainly others that take your position struggle in that respect, as only campaigning positions taken by the leave side seem to be called in to question.
Para 58 - distinguishes between motive and reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Para 61 - they could not find any evidence that a reason was given.
So not contradictory.
"Like"Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Labour voters should be ashamed of their party.
The opposition daren't call a vote of no confidence to trigger a general election.
Is Corbyn the worst labour leader ever?
Says a lot when Boris the numpty isn't challenge.
Haha! Absolutely - that's exactly how I've felt for the past three years. Reading the posts on this Forum have just made me even more convinced.Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerMouse
Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerMouse
Thirded. And I deliberately don’t read most of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffB
Fourthed and never has so much bollocks been written by so few :)Quote:
Originally Posted by millipede
Never has democracy been abused by so many.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
Now being objective. There was no law of "reasonable time for reason" until the supreme court made it, then found boris guilty of breaking it, in violation of powers. It cannot make law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
So why is it they suppose Boris should have given a reason, if the law did not require him to do so? If he had been compelled by law to give a reason he would have said, "I need a queens speech, the centre piece of which is the a deal I have yet to negotiate. It actually takes months (ask Ms May), I only have a couple of weeks because of statute on date, and all my ministers are needed. They cannot be in the commons and negotiate a deal.
A perfectly good reason. Majors idea that a queens speech only takes four days for this complexity, indeed as the master proroguer of history , he now opposes proroguing just shows how low remainer integrity is.
The court invented the need for a reason, it never existed, and is why Boris failed to give one. It is the sole preserve of parliament not a court to make law.
If you want to talk law, lets talk it.
I can cite a thousand examples to prove "reasonableness" forms no part of the law unless explicity put there by law makers.
.
For example - The law of contract does not impose any bounds on whether two way consideration is reasonable , only that it exists. If I buy a car for £1, it is just as binding as buying at valuation, and all the same remedies are available for breach. For the word "reasonable" consideration to be inserted would need parliament to act. No court can put into the law what is not there, not even "reasonableness". And that has formed many case precedents to confirm what I just said is true. Courts cannot put there what is not there, even reasonableness.
The court clearly acted ultra vires, in breach of separation of powers, making an overtly political judgement, when many of the judges are conflicted by EU stipend. The establishment will stop at nothing to overturn democratic will. Even the master of the rolls adviced that the prorogue was not a matter for courts. So this is not a universal opinion.
I despair of this forum. It is happy to allow wholly distorted views from remainers, but if any brexiter dares to comment on facts it is said to be "oxford debating society". Some of this needs challenging everywhere it is said.
In this thread we will see the complete nonsense that nobody voted for no deal, when parliament did - and the electorate did because if they want to leave, that is the only mechanism open - it is there in A50 as what happens if no deal is agreed.
Other than a speaker intent on constitutional destruction - bercow empowering himself as prime minister, since only the government can decide what primary legislation is voted, it is what government means. Standing order 47 precludes spend of money that is not sanctioned by a minister, the bill commmits the country to spend for the interim. The benn act has no legitimacy because it was the product of malfeasance, an ultra vires action by speaker. No doubt the supreme court would conveniently decide it was not judiciable. The deputy speaker and previous speakers like Boothroyd are outraged by bercows behaviour, and if nothing else the speaker must now be made accountable. He has too much power and has abused it to the point of destroying what it means to govern. The benn act should not be possible unless you first become government by election or by confidence.
What has actually happened is remainsers have broken the first law of democracy. All of you. Which is Losers consent. You cannot have a democratic vote unless losers agree to accept the will of the majority however the vote falls. A second referendum has no legitimacy unless the first is honoured. The lib dems are now a contradiction in terms.
It amazes me that intelligent people still can't see they are being played and this divisive BS is exactly what they want.
We really must stop this pathetic childish playground "you did this" "you did that" if we have any hope as a species!
I am utterly disgusted, sickened, to the core, by the behaviour of all politicians and anyone who joins in this pathetic display of the worst humanity has to offer.
I once again bow out of this discussion because once again I feel attacked by the leave contingent even though I have made it clea that I am quite uncertain and would just like to discuss as rational human beings. It is clear to me now this is not possible.
Good luck to everyone, we are going to need it!
You lasted quite a while, I have long since given up on this. I leave them here shouting their toy is not turning out as expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerMouse
Haha, I tried to rise us all above the distractions, misinformation and the inexorable push to divide and conquer, really I did!! I guess I failed - that's okay, it was a tall order, I feel no shame!
Shrugs... whatever happens things will still largely stay the same, the rich will get richer, the poor will become ever more marginalised, public services will continue to be contracted and privatised, the populace will continue to be misled and treated with the contempt it clearly deserves, the corruption and greed will continue and either way our nation will take at least a few generations to recover from this international embarrassment, if it ever does.
I look at the politicians laughing like this is some kind of joke or game, shouting and vomiting their bile and vitriol so vehemently that they are literally spitting at each other in the house of commons and feel nothing but disgust and despair.
I have a confession to make, I didn't vote (I know, but reasons conspired) but as things unfold and become clear to me I am more convinced than ever that this was 100% the right thing to do.
Not in my name!!
I realise I have posted here again after I said I would bow out, but there you have it, maybe I should get into the spirit of saying one thing and doing another as this seems to be the way of the world these days. Hmmm... okay, maybe not :)
I had a fraudulent vote, my 14yr old son was with me and I gave him my voting slip. He voted remain, well it is all about future generations.
Brilliant!!
You are of course absolutely correct :D
I can't see the recent attack you refer to, but hey-ho.Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerMouse
the last 5 posts have been from members who have "bowed out of this". It seems it's their guilty pleasure coming back again, and again, and again....
Maybe we need a Brexiteers Lounge where we can discuss policy, facts and possible outcomes, and a Remainers lounge where they can bitch without anyone challenging them?