Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Supreme Court has now ruled that the Scottish and Welsh Parliamentary representatives CAN be party to the appeal that is due to be heard next month. The pressure on the Govt to back down on the signing of A50 without parliamentary approval is now even more extreme as the Supreme Court could now easily rule that much more work is done (or rather undone) before A50 is invoked. Theresa May should perhaps step away at this moment and act on the High Court ruling, taking her chance in the House of Commons. Things could get worse for her if she gets humiliated in the Supreme Court." You are working from a premise that Ms May and the tories wish to remain in government and be the ones to take us out of the EU. If as I believe this is not the case, then it is not in their interests to accept any court ruling but to turn it into a constitutional issue and use it to trigger a vote of confidence in the government and call an early general election. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Supreme Court has now ruled that the Scottish and Welsh Parliamentary representatives CAN be party to the appeal that is due to be heard next month. The pressure on the Govt to back down on the signing of A50 without parliamentary approval is now even more extreme as the Supreme Court could now easily rule that much more work is done (or rather undone) before A50 is invoked. Theresa May should perhaps step away at this moment and act on the High Court ruling, taking her chance in the House of Commons. Things could get worse for her if she gets humiliated in the Supreme Court." Why would there be any pressure on her ? . We have simply voted to leave so all she has to do is carry out the voters instructions . In any event the government has a majority so it would simply sail through anyway. I fail to understand what the fuss is about . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... Why would there be any pressure on her ? . We have simply voted to leave so all she has to do is carry out the voters instructions . In any event the government has a majority so it would simply sail through anyway. I fail to understand what the fuss is about . " It's called the Law... Prime Minster May took office in complete ignorance of the facts of the legal status of the referendum. The country had an advisory (non-legally binding) referendum about leaving the EU and as such it required an act of Parliament to invoke the decision. She decided that she could use Royal Prerogative powers to sign A50 and start the process of leaving the EU without parliamentary debate and the High Court set her straight. Mrs May then decided to appeal that decision at the Supreme Court and as a consequence the Scottish and Welsh governments filed a motion to be a part of that process and today the Supreme Court ruled that they should be. The Supreme Court has the power to not just to uphold the decision of the High Court but to order further direction. One Supreme Court Judge has already stated in public that it could include the Government not just having to agree to let Parliament debate it, but to repeal the European Communities before invoking A50 as well. Add to that now the presence of more opposing legal arguments on top of the multiple existing arguments, this is not helpful for the govt and their legal team. So Mrs May has been poorly informed and at the moment she is seeking a stand off with the Supreme Court which could delay the invoking or Article 50 by months (possibly years). As it stands, the High Court has told her that parliament must debate and vote on A50. That is as good as it gets and she is not doing the Brexit camp any favours going to the Supreme Court. Things could get much more enmbarrassing for Teheresa May and her poorly advised Brexit team. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".... Why would there be any pressure on her ? . We have simply voted to leave so all she has to do is carry out the voters instructions . In any event the government has a majority so it would simply sail through anyway. I fail to understand what the fuss is about . It's called the Law... Prime Minster May took office in complete ignorance of the facts of the legal status of the referendum. The country had an advisory (non-legally binding) referendum about leaving the EU and as such it required an act of Parliament to invoke the decision. She decided that she could use Royal Prerogative powers to sign A50 and start the process of leaving the EU without parliamentary debate and the High Court set her straight. Mrs May then decided to appeal that decision at the Supreme Court and as a consequence the Scottish and Welsh governments filed a motion to be a part of that process and today the Supreme Court ruled that they should be. The Supreme Court has the power to not just to uphold the decision of the High Court but to order further direction. One Supreme Court Judge has already stated in public that it could include the Government not just having to agree to let Parliament debate it, but to repeal the European Communities before invoking A50 as well. Add to that now the presence of more opposing legal arguments on top of the multiple existing arguments, this is not helpful for the govt and their legal team. So Mrs May has been poorly informed and at the moment she is seeking a stand off with the Supreme Court which could delay the invoking or Article 50 by months (possibly years). As it stands, the High Court has told her that parliament must debate and vote on A50. That is as good as it gets and she is not doing the Brexit camp any favours going to the Supreme Court. Things could get much more enmbarrassing for Teheresa May and her poorly advised Brexit team." If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ?" This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... " Ah so its a case of do as we say not as we do,glad to see the supreme court going public about an on going case | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... " Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. " There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored " This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. " The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. " Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. " Yes you are correct Scotland did have a referendum on independence and voted to stay part of the UK So as part of the UK we have equal rights as its suppose to be a equal partnership and Scotland's vote in the EU referendum should not be ignored. If its respected then all this talk of a 2nd referendum goes away but if it doesnt then its only fair that the question of independence come up again as the SNP do have a mandate from the Scottish people if Scotland get dragged out it was a trigger for a 2nd referendum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. Yes you are correct Scotland did have a referendum on independence and voted to stay part of the UK So as part of the UK we have equal rights as its suppose to be a equal partnership and Scotland's vote in the EU referendum should not be ignored. If its respected then all this talk of a 2nd referendum goes away but if it doesnt then its only fair that the question of independence come up again as the SNP do have a mandate from the Scottish people if Scotland get dragged out it was a trigger for a 2nd referendum. " So a part of the uk with 5.5 million wants to tell the rest of the country that it cant leave,yep thats sounds equal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. Yes you are correct Scotland did have a referendum on independence and voted to stay part of the UK So as part of the UK we have equal rights as its suppose to be a equal partnership and Scotland's vote in the EU referendum should not be ignored. If its respected then all this talk of a 2nd referendum goes away but if it doesnt then its only fair that the question of independence come up again as the SNP do have a mandate from the Scottish people if Scotland get dragged out it was a trigger for a 2nd referendum. So a part of the uk with 5.5 million wants to tell the rest of the country that it cant leave,yep thats sounds equal " This is why England should finish the job and leave the U K aswell 
Let the welsh and scots get on with it , tho I suspect the E U would say ta but no ta
Then we would be free if paying for them and Thier moaning and hatred of us English | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. Yes you are correct Scotland did have a referendum on independence and voted to stay part of the UK So as part of the UK we have equal rights as its suppose to be a equal partnership and Scotland's vote in the EU referendum should not be ignored. If its respected then all this talk of a 2nd referendum goes away but if it doesnt then its only fair that the question of independence come up again as the SNP do have a mandate from the Scottish people if Scotland get dragged out it was a trigger for a 2nd referendum. So a part of the uk with 5.5 million wants to tell the rest of the country that it cant leave,yep thats sounds equal " Bingo so the UK is not an equal partnership your right on what you say and it could also be twisted round to say a country with 50+ million could drag Scotland out of the EU when Scotland voted to remain see my point that clearly shows its not an equal partnership either way you look at it Now as it stands Scotland is part of the UK and in 2014 Scotland was told the UK is a family of 4 nations. So with being part of the UK why shouldnt Scotland voice be heard ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. Yes you are correct Scotland did have a referendum on independence and voted to stay part of the UK So as part of the UK we have equal rights as its suppose to be a equal partnership and Scotland's vote in the EU referendum should not be ignored. If its respected then all this talk of a 2nd referendum goes away but if it doesnt then its only fair that the question of independence come up again as the SNP do have a mandate from the Scottish people if Scotland get dragged out it was a trigger for a 2nd referendum. So a part of the uk with 5.5 million wants to tell the rest of the country that it cant leave,yep thats sounds equal This is why England should finish the job and leave the U K aswell
Let the welsh and scots get on with it , tho I suspect the E U would say ta but no ta
Then we would be free if paying for them and Thier moaning and hatred of us English "Scottish people dont hate England the ones who believe in independence think Scotland should govern itself rather than being told from a government we never voted for. Also you say ''We pay for them'' If that were true and you think Scotland leeches off England that why do you think they came up to Scotland in 2014 begging Scotland to stay in the UK ? I believe every country should be independent that includes England as i dont see it being fair that England does not have an English parliament or an national anthem | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. Yes you are correct Scotland did have a referendum on independence and voted to stay part of the UK So as part of the UK we have equal rights as its suppose to be a equal partnership and Scotland's vote in the EU referendum should not be ignored. If its respected then all this talk of a 2nd referendum goes away but if it doesnt then its only fair that the question of independence come up again as the SNP do have a mandate from the Scottish people if Scotland get dragged out it was a trigger for a 2nd referendum. So a part of the uk with 5.5 million wants to tell the rest of the country that it cant leave,yep thats sounds equal This is why England should finish the job and leave the U K aswell
Let the welsh and scots get on with it , tho I suspect the E U would say ta but no ta
Then we would be free if paying for them and Thier moaning and hatred of us English
Scottish people dont hate England the ones who believe in independence think Scotland should govern itself rather than being told from a government we never voted for.
Also you say ''We pay for them'' If that were true and you think Scotland leeches off England that why do you think they came up to Scotland in 2014 begging Scotland to stay in the UK ?
I believe every country should be independent that includes England as i dont see it being fair that England does not have an English parliament or an national anthem "I agree with the last bit
I think all 4 nations should be independent
They could still be mates tho | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. Yes you are correct Scotland did have a referendum on independence and voted to stay part of the UK So as part of the UK we have equal rights as its suppose to be a equal partnership and Scotland's vote in the EU referendum should not be ignored. If its respected then all this talk of a 2nd referendum goes away but if it doesnt then its only fair that the question of independence come up again as the SNP do have a mandate from the Scottish people if Scotland get dragged out it was a trigger for a 2nd referendum. So a part of the uk with 5.5 million wants to tell the rest of the country that it cant leave,yep thats sounds equal This is why England should finish the job and leave the U K aswell
Let the welsh and scots get on with it , tho I suspect the E U would say ta but no ta
Then we would be free if paying for them and Thier moaning and hatred of us English
Scottish people dont hate England the ones who believe in independence think Scotland should govern itself rather than being told from a government we never voted for.
Also you say ''We pay for them'' If that were true and you think Scotland leeches off England that why do you think they came up to Scotland in 2014 begging Scotland to stay in the UK ?
I believe every country should be independent that includes England as i dont see it being fair that England does not have an English parliament or an national anthem
I agree with the last bit
I think all 4 nations should be independent
They could still be mates tho "Yeah its always good to be neighbours and when we run out of tea of coffee borrow some lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. Yes you are correct Scotland did have a referendum on independence and voted to stay part of the UK So as part of the UK we have equal rights as its suppose to be a equal partnership and Scotland's vote in the EU referendum should not be ignored. If its respected then all this talk of a 2nd referendum goes away but if it doesnt then its only fair that the question of independence come up again as the SNP do have a mandate from the Scottish people if Scotland get dragged out it was a trigger for a 2nd referendum. So a part of the uk with 5.5 million wants to tell the rest of the country that it cant leave,yep thats sounds equal This is why England should finish the job and leave the U K aswell
Let the welsh and scots get on with it , tho I suspect the E U would say ta but no ta
Then we would be free if paying for them and Thier moaning and hatred of us English "A majority in Wales voted to Leave the EU in the referendum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. Yes you are correct Scotland did have a referendum on independence and voted to stay part of the UK So as part of the UK we have equal rights as its suppose to be a equal partnership and Scotland's vote in the EU referendum should not be ignored. If its respected then all this talk of a 2nd referendum goes away but if it doesnt then its only fair that the question of independence come up again as the SNP do have a mandate from the Scottish people if Scotland get dragged out it was a trigger for a 2nd referendum. " The UK is going to leave the EU. Sturgeon should just call a 2nd referendum and stop whinging. She won't do It though because she knows she'll lose again. I think Scotland should call a 2nd referendum to settle this Issue for good. If Scotland votes to leave the uk England and Wales maybe financially better off. If Scotland votes to remain part of the the UK (again) then the issue will be settled for good and Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP can stop banging on about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. Yes you are correct Scotland did have a referendum on independence and voted to stay part of the UK So as part of the UK we have equal rights as its suppose to be a equal partnership and Scotland's vote in the EU referendum should not be ignored. If its respected then all this talk of a 2nd referendum goes away but if it doesnt then its only fair that the question of independence come up again as the SNP do have a mandate from the Scottish people if Scotland get dragged out it was a trigger for a 2nd referendum. So a part of the uk with 5.5 million wants to tell the rest of the country that it cant leave,yep thats sounds equal This is why England should finish the job and leave the U K aswell
Let the welsh and scots get on with it , tho I suspect the E U would say ta but no ta
Then we would be free if paying for them and Thier moaning and hatred of us English "The Barnet formula is not an 'equal' deal. Scotland gets more out of it than England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Why are the Scots nats not constantly pointing out this is not an 'equal' part of the the partnership, and is unfair on England, Wales and Northern Ireland? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. Yes you are correct Scotland did have a referendum on independence and voted to stay part of the UK So as part of the UK we have equal rights as its suppose to be a equal partnership and Scotland's vote in the EU referendum should not be ignored. If its respected then all this talk of a 2nd referendum goes away but if it doesnt then its only fair that the question of independence come up again as the SNP do have a mandate from the Scottish people if Scotland get dragged out it was a trigger for a 2nd referendum. So a part of the uk with 5.5 million wants to tell the rest of the country that it cant leave,yep thats sounds equal This is why England should finish the job and leave the U K aswell
Let the welsh and scots get on with it , tho I suspect the E U would say ta but no ta
Then we would be free if paying for them and Thier moaning and hatred of us English
Scottish people dont hate England the ones who believe in independence think Scotland should govern itself rather than being told from a government we never voted for.
Also you say ''We pay for them'' If that were true and you think Scotland leeches off England that why do you think they came up to Scotland in 2014 begging Scotland to stay in the UK ?
I believe every country should be independent that includes England as i dont see it being fair that England does not have an English parliament or an national anthem
I agree with the last bit
I think all 4 nations should be independent
They could still be mates tho
Yeah its always good to be neighbours and when we run out of tea of coffee borrow some lol "Exactly except the Scots will want jars back he he xxx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. Yes you are correct Scotland did have a referendum on independence and voted to stay part of the UK So as part of the UK we have equal rights as its suppose to be a equal partnership and Scotland's vote in the EU referendum should not be ignored. If its respected then all this talk of a 2nd referendum goes away but if it doesnt then its only fair that the question of independence come up again as the SNP do have a mandate from the Scottish people if Scotland get dragged out it was a trigger for a 2nd referendum. So a part of the uk with 5.5 million wants to tell the rest of the country that it cant leave,yep thats sounds equal This is why England should finish the job and leave the U K aswell
Let the welsh and scots get on with it , tho I suspect the E U would say ta but no ta
Then we would be free if paying for them and Thier moaning and hatred of us English
Scottish people dont hate England the ones who believe in independence think Scotland should govern itself rather than being told from a government we never voted for.
Also you say ''We pay for them'' If that were true and you think Scotland leeches off England that why do you think they came up to Scotland in 2014 begging Scotland to stay in the UK ?
I believe every country should be independent that includes England as i dont see it being fair that England does not have an English parliament or an national anthem "So you want to swap being governed by Westminster to being governed by Brussels and the EU then? Really strange and illogical position to take if you ask me. If you really want Scotland to be independent then you leave the UK and the EU, that is real independence. Westminster is progressively devolving more and more powers to the Scottish government as time goes by, while the EU is set on a path of taking sovereignty and powers away from countries. It really is strange why Scottish nationalists want to remain part of the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. Yes you are correct Scotland did have a referendum on independence and voted to stay part of the UK So as part of the UK we have equal rights as its suppose to be a equal partnership and Scotland's vote in the EU referendum should not be ignored. If its respected then all this talk of a 2nd referendum goes away but if it doesnt then its only fair that the question of independence come up again as the SNP do have a mandate from the Scottish people if Scotland get dragged out it was a trigger for a 2nd referendum. So a part of the uk with 5.5 million wants to tell the rest of the country that it cant leave,yep thats sounds equal This is why England should finish the job and leave the U K aswell
Let the welsh and scots get on with it , tho I suspect the E U would say ta but no ta
Then we would be free if paying for them and Thier moaning and hatred of us English
The Barnet formula is not an 'equal' deal. Scotland gets more out of it than England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Why are the Scots nats not constantly pointing out this is not an 'equal' part of the the partnership, and is unfair on England, Wales and Northern Ireland? "But the is unfairness in any funding equation. It costs more to deliver public services in Cornwall than it does Camden, so Cornwall will get more spent on it per head of population. Is that fair? Why do you think that is fine, but not between England and Scotland? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Noticed this morning that a number of senior Brexiters are now also urging PM May to abandon the appeal because things could get much worse in the Supreme Court and they know it." But surely the Supreme Court is exactly where this kind of decision should be made? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored This was all brought up on Question Time on Thursday night. The OP mentioned Wales and a majority in Wales voted Leave same as England. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK, and the EU referendum was a UK wide referendum, the UK is one country, so the referendum result is taken as one result for the whole of the UK combined. If Scotland don't like it then the SNP should call another independence referendum in Scotland to settle the issue. The UK is not a country its an island made up for 4 countries. The act of the union was signed that Scotland and England would join as a union in a equal partnership. There lies the problem its not a equal partnership. The SNP are looking out for Scotland's best interest and that is to stay in the EU and single market. Ive heard all this Scotland wouldnt be independent if it left the UK and joined the EU but the 27 countries in the EU are independent countries. Scotland had an independence referendum and voted to Remain part of the UK. The UK had an EU referendum and voted to Leave the EU. Yes you are correct Scotland did have a referendum on independence and voted to stay part of the UK So as part of the UK we have equal rights as its suppose to be a equal partnership and Scotland's vote in the EU referendum should not be ignored. If its respected then all this talk of a 2nd referendum goes away but if it doesnt then its only fair that the question of independence come up again as the SNP do have a mandate from the Scottish people if Scotland get dragged out it was a trigger for a 2nd referendum. So a part of the uk with 5.5 million wants to tell the rest of the country that it cant leave,yep thats sounds equal This is why England should finish the job and leave the U K aswell
Let the welsh and scots get on with it , tho I suspect the E U would say ta but no ta
Then we would be free if paying for them and Thier moaning and hatred of us English
Scottish people dont hate England the ones who believe in independence think Scotland should govern itself rather than being told from a government we never voted for.
Also you say ''We pay for them'' If that were true and you think Scotland leeches off England that why do you think they came up to Scotland in 2014 begging Scotland to stay in the UK ?
I believe every country should be independent that includes England as i dont see it being fair that England does not have an English parliament or an national anthem
So you want to swap being governed by Westminster to being governed by Brussels and the EU then? Really strange and illogical position to take if you ask me. If you really want Scotland to be independent then you leave the UK and the EU, that is real independence.
Westminster is progressively devolving more and more powers to the Scottish government as time goes by, while the EU is set on a path of taking sovereignty and powers away from countries. It really is strange why Scottish nationalists want to remain part of the EU. "27 countries in the EU and they are all independent countries why would an independent Scotland be any different in the EU ? Yes Scotland has devolved powers and get more thats correct but money is not devolved thats a key issue For example the Scottish NHS is devolved but the money is not devolved so with the English NHS not doing so well it has effect on the Scottish NHS budget. It must tell you something that even with Scotland getting a set budget to work with no borrowing powers the Scottish NHS has the best record in the UK same with education. Labour and the Tories are ruining the UK Am interested to know this what products get made in England and exported to Scotland ? Did you know Whiskey is made in Scotland gets send to English ports and exported as a UK product ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Noticed this morning that a number of senior Brexiters are now also urging PM May to abandon the appeal because things could get much worse in the Supreme Court and they know it. But surely the Supreme Court is exactly where this kind of decision should be made?" Of course it is but the Scottish argument could well be persuasive enough for the Supreme Court to make even more punitive orders against the Govt. position and it is that likelohood that is causing anxiety amongst Brexiters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Noticed this morning that a number of senior Brexiters are now also urging PM May to abandon the appeal because things could get much worse in the Supreme Court and they know it. But surely the Supreme Court is exactly where this kind of decision should be made? Of course it is but the Scottish argument could well be persuasive enough for the Supreme Court to make even more punitive orders against the Govt. position and it is that likelohood that is causing anxiety amongst Brexiters." I know, but they have been going on about British courts are better than European courts, and about parliamentary sovereignty, so if that's what they believe they really should leave it up to the Supreme Court. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't we get over this ? We voted to leave ! Let's get on with it "I thought you voted for parliamentary democracy and the supremacy of british courts  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't we get over this ? We voted to leave ! Let's get on with it
I thought you voted for parliamentary democracy and the supremacy of british courts "I don't have much faith in our Courts tbh . But I believe in Parliment . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't we get over this ? We voted to leave ! Let's get on with it "Actually you did not really vote to leave, your vote was to advice parliament. (That is not my opinion, it is what the 'Referendum Bill' said.) The referendum had no legal power, it was noting more than a device to keep the tories in power for an extra 5 years. You and millions more fell for it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't we get over this ? We voted to leave ! Let's get on with it "Scotland didnt vote leave Scotland voted to remain in the EU Also am aware that Scotland is part of the UK and as part of this equal partnership in the UK Scotland's voice should be heard also and if its not then it breaks the act of the union. Also am surprised the leave voters are not mad at the Tories for telling us all what their plans is for brexit then wouldnt be no need to all this going through the courts. Alot of you may not know what it was like up here in Scotland in 2014 but the 3 parties that formed Better Together said the Yes side should tell them their plan A and Plan B and so on for Scottish independence yet here we have the Tories with no plan A and no plan B Even the Tory MSP's up here in Scotland are asking what the SNP's plans are for brexit that's how much the Tories dont have a clue on what they are doing asking other parties what there plans is lmao | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't we get over this ? We voted to leave ! Let's get on with it
Scotland didnt vote leave Scotland voted to remain in the EU
Also am aware that Scotland is part of the UK and as part of this equal partnership in the UK Scotland's voice should be heard also and if its not then it breaks the act of the union.
Also am surprised the leave voters are not mad at the Tories for telling us all what their plans is for brexit then wouldnt be no need to all this going through the courts.
Alot of you may not know what it was like up here in Scotland in 2014 but the 3 parties that formed Better Together said the Yes side should tell them their plan A and Plan B and so on for Scottish independence yet here we have the Tories with no plan A and no plan B
Even the Tory MSP's up here in Scotland are asking what the SNP's plans are for brexit that's how much the Tories dont have a clue on what they are doing asking other parties what there plans is lmao"I honestly don't believe Brexiters care. I don't think they would care if inflation was 5% GDP was -5%, unemployment was 20%. I don't think they would care. They would still say it's worth it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I honestly don't believe Brexiters care. I don't think they would care if inflation was 5% GDP was -5%, unemployment was 20%. I don't think they would care. They would still say it's worth it. " I think you underestimate how much many brexiteers would be willing to sacrifice (providing it is not them making the sacrifices) to get out of the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Throw in the fact that there's no guarantee MP's will vote for Brexit in accordance with the referendum results, and you have one of the most interesting political sagas in modern British history on your hands. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't we get over this ? We voted to leave ! Let's get on with it
Scotland didnt vote leave Scotland voted to remain in the EU
Also am aware that Scotland is part of the UK and as part of this equal partnership in the UK Scotland's voice should be heard also and if its not then it breaks the act of the union.
Also am surprised the leave voters are not mad at the Tories for telling us all what their plans is for brexit then wouldnt be no need to all this going through the courts.
Alot of you may not know what it was like up here in Scotland in 2014 but the 3 parties that formed Better Together said the Yes side should tell them their plan A and Plan B and so on for Scottish independence yet here we have the Tories with no plan A and no plan B
Even the Tory MSP's up here in Scotland are asking what the SNP's plans are for brexit that's how much the Tories dont have a clue on what they are doing asking other parties what there plans is lmao
I honestly don't believe Brexiters care. I don't think they would care if inflation was 5% GDP was -5%, unemployment was 20%. I don't think they would care. They would still say it's worth it. "Yes I would ! What price Freedom. ? I want my country back ! And yes I mean England ! And no ! Not just for white people ! All races and couler | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't we get over this ? We voted to leave ! Let's get on with it
Scotland didnt vote leave Scotland voted to remain in the EU
Also am aware that Scotland is part of the UK and as part of this equal partnership in the UK Scotland's voice should be heard also and if its not then it breaks the act of the union.
Also am surprised the leave voters are not mad at the Tories for telling us all what their plans is for brexit then wouldnt be no need to all this going through the courts.
Alot of you may not know what it was like up here in Scotland in 2014 but the 3 parties that formed Better Together said the Yes side should tell them their plan A and Plan B and so on for Scottish independence yet here we have the Tories with no plan A and no plan B
Even the Tory MSP's up here in Scotland are asking what the SNP's plans are for brexit that's how much the Tories dont have a clue on what they are doing asking other parties what there plans is lmao
I honestly don't believe Brexiters care. I don't think they would care if inflation was 5% GDP was -5%, unemployment was 20%. I don't think they would care. They would still say it's worth it. "Tbe day thst we leave the EU will be no different to the day before . Countries still need our goods and we will need theirs . Any import or export taxes will simply cancel out. There is no point in making things too complex . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. " Or she might not be able to. If the Supreme Court says she has to go through parliament (which I'm pretty sure it will do) then she'll have to delay BREXIT until after a parliamentary vote. It could be even worse if the Supreme Court says votes have to be taken in the devolved assemblies to (however I think that's unlikely as I think the law is clear and it's that the Parliment in Westminster is sovereign). However it could be even worse and cause even more of a delay if the Supreme Court was to rule in favour of the government's current position because then the matter could end up falling under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. If that happens you can pretty much forget any sort of BREXIT for 5 or more years. There are many in this country that want BREXIT and there are many who don't , but surely all, whether in favour of BREXIT or not, should want BREXIT, if it has to happen, to done properly, in accordance with the law and due process, and not open to future legal challenge by any, including constituent parts of the UK or our current European partners. If we don't have the rule of law then we don't really have anything and certainly not a functioning democracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... If what you say about the judge's comments are true ( not doubting you) then I dont think he/she will be allowed to sit on the case as the comments show predetermination,it is highly irregular for a judge to comment on a case beforehand hasnt she/he heard of sub judice ? This claim has already been made and this is what the Supreme Court said about it: ........ the Supreme Court put out a statement defending Hale, stressing that she “was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal.” “It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way. “One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”.... Your post is full of ifs, could this, maybe that and possibly the other. The supreme court could also maybe, possibly agree with Theresa May and the government and rule in her favour then she can invoke article 50 and carry through the result of the referendum, implement the wish of the 52% majority who voted leave and get on with the job of leaving the European Union. There is one problem with that Scotland voted remain by 62% and because Scotland is part of the UK and its suppose to be a equal partnership then Scotland must have its say too and not be ignored " I think morally you're right but legally I don't think it holds. The UK, not Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland, is the member of the EU. As such it's the legal job of Westminster, not the devolved assemblies, to manage the UK's relationship with the EU. Also any powers the the devolved assemblies around the UK have is given to them by the UK parliament in Westminster. However, as the parliament in Westminster remains solely sovereign throughout the UK, it can take back that power to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't we get over this ? We voted to leave ! Let's get on with it
Scotland didnt vote leave Scotland voted to remain in the EU
Also am aware that Scotland is part of the UK and as part of this equal partnership in the UK Scotland's voice should be heard also and if its not then it breaks the act of the union.
Also am surprised the leave voters are not mad at the Tories for telling us all what their plans is for brexit then wouldnt be no need to all this going through the courts.
Alot of you may not know what it was like up here in Scotland in 2014 but the 3 parties that formed Better Together said the Yes side should tell them their plan A and Plan B and so on for Scottish independence yet here we have the Tories with no plan A and no plan B
Even the Tory MSP's up here in Scotland are asking what the SNP's plans are for brexit that's how much the Tories dont have a clue on what they are doing asking other parties what there plans is lmao
I honestly don't believe Brexiters care. I don't think they would care if inflation was 5% GDP was -5%, unemployment was 20%. I don't think they would care. They would still say it's worth it.
Yes I would ! What price Freedom. ?
I want my country back !
And yes I mean England !
And no ! Not just for white people !
All races and couler "I don't need my country back because I never lost it in the first place. But at least you're being honest. Just a shame that, in order to get back what you never lost any how, you felt the need to lie to the British people about their financial future when, or if, we finally do leave the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
