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 |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " What a load of old tosh and you know it   | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Democracy has died because the judges say the democratically elected representatives of the people should be involved in the process of what happens to our nation? That makes no sense???" I think the OP would prefer our PM to act in a dictatorship role while he's persuing their narrative | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " Boo. Fucking. Hoo | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I kind of think it sparked back into life. " Yes. I’m looking forward to speaking to Brexit-nutter family about this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you agree with the judges or not. The only answer is a general election. The usual suspects were on the steps of the court all spouting for Boris to resign. Yet when presented with the only logical solution when they were actually in parliament, they ran away scared. Says everything about them." Well I had no view on Parliament being prorogued because I didn't know the legal side and implications. Something which no one on here probably did either but the Judges have taken days to come to their conclusion and if they say unanimously it was unlawful then it was unlawful | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you agree with the judges or not. The only answer is a general election. The usual suspects were on the steps of the court all spouting for Boris to resign. Yet when presented with the only logical solution when they were actually in parliament, they ran away scared. Says everything about them." Well, that's one way to look at it. A more accurate way would be that a general election now would give Johnson free reign to ram through the policy an election would be intended to stop. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you agree with the judges or not. The only answer is a general election. The usual suspects were on the steps of the court all spouting for Boris to resign. Yet when presented with the only logical solution when they were actually in parliament, they ran away scared. Says everything about them." No it doesn't. Everyone knew that Boris could have easily circumvented Parliament by changing the date of a General Election until after the UK crashed out with a no deal Brexit People aren't stupid mate | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " This is amazing. First time I've genuinely laughed out loud from a post on here. There's so much wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start. I have no idea if you believe this rubbish or if this is an ironic post. In any case. Genius. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " how can you seriously say that in the wake of an unelected PM LYING to an unelected German woman to fortify his own financial ends and cause I told misery to the population...but as long as you get a blue passport and blame Albanians coming into the country that’s ok I presume ?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " Wow... Just fucking wow. I can't help but wonder how 11 independent BRITISH judges, upholding BRITISH law and demanding that Parliament holds the Government to account is undemocratic? Presumably, riding roughshod over laws that are inconvenient is the right kind of democracy? This kind of post actually caricatures all the very many reasons why so many people voted to leave and demonstrates at a stroke just how politically and economically illiterate so many people in this country are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " but all you brexiteers wanted parliament to "take back control " well guess what this is the taking back control and using the courts to enforce it make your mind up | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The op is a good example of the extremists inside the Brexit cult. A warning to all good and decent people.." I don't think the OP is a good representative of leavers. Haha. Just a much more confused brand of leaver. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " You lost, get over it  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " We're having a remoaners orgy on Friday, in the Croydon area; let me know if you two want to join. We're so far 6 remoaner females and 12 remoaner males... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you agree with the judges or not. The only answer is a general election. The usual suspects were on the steps of the court all spouting for Boris to resign. Yet when presented with the only logical solution when they were actually in parliament, they ran away scared. Says everything about them." Not really - they're attempting to hold the government to account and force them to abide by the will of the people which was expressed in both the referrendum and the last general election. A general election now would not allow sufficient time for the will of the people to be delivered. After we gain an extension so that we can gain the time to go back to the EU and get a deal which the leave campaign and last conservative manifesto both promised - then we can have an election. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmmm normally not one for doing politics on here but an interesting discussion here. If we Take the now emotionally charged word of brexit out of the equation, consider this if you will. I am waiting to read the conclusions of the Supreme Court and evidence submitted to prove that Johnson lied to the Queen about the reason for the porogation, as these conversations are not as far as I’m aware recorded in any way can there be any evidence of falsehood? so really unless there’s been a hitherto unannounced breakthrough in mind reading tech or possibly mystic meg was a star witness. The ruling today is the Supreme courts OPINION and not based in legal fact or evidence based. That my friends is where the danger to democracy lies the unelected judiciary ruling porogation illegal in this one case, when it has been used a number of times before for nakedly political purposes just one example is one John Major to avoid publication of a report into cash for questions just before a general election porogued parliament " As Lady Hale said, on the evidence presented to the court there was no reason, let alone a good one, for a prorogation of five weeks. The government had the opportunity to present such evidence, but it failed to do so. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the Court of Session in the earlier case in Edinburgh, received a witness statement from the government stating the reasons for the prorogation. The only reasonable conclusion is that the government couldn't find a minister or civil servant willing to sign their name on a document they knew to be a lie. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That my friends is where the danger to democracy lies the unelected judiciary ruling porogation illegal in this one case, when it has been used a number of times before for nakedly political purposes just one example is one John Major to avoid publication of a report into cash for questions just before a general election porogued parliament " The law has changed. Back then, the PM had the power to proroge for the purpose of an election. The Fixed Term Parliament Act effectively removed that power and gave Parliament the power to decide on an election. Proroging Parliament for an election and proroging to prevent Parliament impeding the Government are not really comparable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmmm normally not one for doing politics on here but an interesting discussion here. If we Take the now emotionally charged word of brexit out of the equation, consider this if you will. I am waiting to read the conclusions of the Supreme Court and evidence submitted to prove that Johnson lied to the Queen about the reason for the porogation, as these conversations are not as far as I’m aware recorded in any way can there be any evidence of falsehood? so really unless there’s been a hitherto unannounced breakthrough in mind reading tech or possibly mystic meg was a star witness. The ruling today is the Supreme courts OPINION and not based in legal fact or evidence based. That my friends is where the danger to democracy lies the unelected judiciary ruling porogation illegal in this one case, when it has been used a number of times before for nakedly political purposes just one example is one John Major to avoid publication of a report into cash for questions just before a general election porogued parliament As Lady Hale said, on the evidence presented to the court there was no reason, let alone a good one, for a prorogation of five weeks. The government had the opportunity to present such evidence, but it failed to do so. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the Court of Session in the earlier case in Edinburgh, received a witness statement from the government stating the reasons for the prorogation. The only reasonable conclusion is that the government couldn't find a minister or civil servant willing to sign their name on a document they knew to be a lie." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. Wow... Just fucking wow. I can't help but wonder how 11 independent BRITISH judges, upholding BRITISH law and demanding that Parliament holds the Government to account is undemocratic? Presumably, riding roughshod over laws that are inconvenient is the right kind of democracy? This kind of post actually caricatures all the very many reasons why so many people voted to leave and demonstrates at a stroke just how politically and economically illiterate so many people in this country are. " atleast you stopped short of calling leavers oiks riff raff chavs and racists this time lol you know you wana tho | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. You lost, get over it " They are losers from June 23, 2016 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. Wow... Just fucking wow. I can't help but wonder how 11 independent BRITISH judges, upholding BRITISH law and demanding that Parliament holds the Government to account is undemocratic? Presumably, riding roughshod over laws that are inconvenient is the right kind of democracy? This kind of post actually caricatures all the very many reasons why so many people voted to leave and demonstrates at a stroke just how politically and economically illiterate so many people in this country are. atleast you stopped short of calling leavers oiks riff raff chavs and racists this time lol you know you wana tho " Do you have some kind of obsession or fantasy about the oiks, chavs and riff-raff of society? Why do you keep going on about it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you agree with the judges or not. The only answer is a general election. The usual suspects were on the steps of the court all spouting for Boris to resign. Yet when presented with the only logical solution when they were actually in parliament, they ran away scared. Says everything about them." Don't worry, the General Election is coming and soon too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. You lost, get over it "LOL I was wondering when someone would say that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. Wow... Just fucking wow. I can't help but wonder how 11 independent BRITISH judges, upholding BRITISH law and demanding that Parliament holds the Government to account is undemocratic? Presumably, riding roughshod over laws that are inconvenient is the right kind of democracy? This kind of post actually caricatures all the very many reasons why so many people voted to leave and demonstrates at a stroke just how politically and economically illiterate so many people in this country are. atleast you stopped short of calling leavers oiks riff raff chavs and racists this time lol you know you wana tho Do you have some kind of obsession or fantasy about the oiks, chavs and riff-raff of society? Why do you keep going on about it?" _oo hot you know it’s what you called us leave voters and don’t leave out racists aswell yes you’ve calmed down a lot since then you’ve rained it in a bit I just think you went way over the top for a few months probs just going through a bad time don’t worry we’ve all been there lol it’s just a bit of crack buddy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " It didn't die today. FPTP means it never has been a democracy. It still isn't. What happened this morning prevented it from going further towards a dictatorship. That's a good thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " Your pain must be unbelievably great. I do not feel sorry | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because of FPTP Britain has been referred as an elective dictatorship. An "elective dictatorship" (also called executive dominance in political science) is a phrase popularised by the former Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, Lord Hailsham, in a Richard Dimbleby Lecture at the BBC in 1976. It describes the state in which Parliament is dominated by the government of the day. It refers to the fact that the legislative programme of Parliament is determined by the government, and government bills virtually always pass the House of Commons because of the nature of the majoritarian first-past-the-post electoral system, which almost always produces strong government, in combination with the imposition of party discipline on the governing party's majority, which almost always ensures loyalty. In the absence of a codified constitution, this tendency toward executive dominance is compounded by the Parliament Acts and Salisbury Convention which circumscribe the House of Lords and their ability to block government initiatives." Are you suggesting that Boris’s behaviour was within the boundaries of parliament? I thought the point was that he misled, or lied to the queen and no evidence was produced by his government that justifies his action. Would you be happy to allow him to move further towards dictatorship? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " Bloody Snowflake Always moaning | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. Bloody Snowflake Always moaning" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmmm normally not one for doing politics on here but an interesting discussion here. If we Take the now emotionally charged word of brexit out of the equation, consider this if you will. I am waiting to read the conclusions of the Supreme Court and evidence submitted to prove that Johnson lied to the Queen about the reason for the porogation, as these conversations are not as far as I’m aware recorded in any way can there be any evidence of falsehood? so really unless there’s been a hitherto unannounced breakthrough in mind reading tech or possibly mystic meg was a star witness. The ruling today is the Supreme courts OPINION and not based in legal fact or evidence based. That my friends is where the danger to democracy lies the unelected judiciary ruling porogation illegal in this one case, when it has been used a number of times before for nakedly political purposes just one example is one John Major to avoid publication of a report into cash for questions just before a general election porogued parliament As Lady Hale said, on the evidence presented to the court there was no reason, let alone a good one, for a prorogation of five weeks. The government had the opportunity to present such evidence, but it failed to do so. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the Court of Session in the earlier case in Edinburgh, received a witness statement from the government stating the reasons for the prorogation. The only reasonable conclusion is that the government couldn't find a minister or civil servant willing to sign their name on a document they knew to be a lie." Apologies for the delay work intruded Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmmm normally not one for doing politics on here but an interesting discussion here. If we Take the now emotionally charged word of brexit out of the equation, consider this if you will. I am waiting to read the conclusions of the Supreme Court and evidence submitted to prove that Johnson lied to the Queen about the reason for the porogation, as these conversations are not as far as I’m aware recorded in any way can there be any evidence of falsehood? so really unless there’s been a hitherto unannounced breakthrough in mind reading tech or possibly mystic meg was a star witness. The ruling today is the Supreme courts OPINION and not based in legal fact or evidence based. That my friends is where the danger to democracy lies the unelected judiciary ruling porogation illegal in this one case, when it has been used a number of times before for nakedly political purposes just one example is one John Major to avoid publication of a report into cash for questions just before a general election porogued parliament As Lady Hale said, on the evidence presented to the court there was no reason, let alone a good one, for a prorogation of five weeks. The government had the opportunity to present such evidence, but it failed to do so. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the Court of Session in the earlier case in Edinburgh, received a witness statement from the government stating the reasons for the prorogation. The only reasonable conclusion is that the government couldn't find a minister or civil servant willing to sign their name on a document they knew to be a lie. Apologies for the delay work intruded Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement " Are you suggesting the 11 supreme judges are wrong in their judgement  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re testing our institutions, but they are strong and will see us through this. Democracy doesn’t die if a PM attempts to prorogue Parliament, or if the #SupremeCourt overrules him, or if MPs act on their consciences. It will if we don’t respect the referendum and each other." I can easily respect anyone worthy of it, as for the referendum result, yes it should be implimented because Cameron promised he would even though his promise disappeared the day after with him. On the other hand I wouldn't be fussed if Brexit was scrapped all together if a deal that was promised by leave couldn't be achieved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Apologies for the delay work intruded Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement " I presume you are a Supreme Court judge then to be able to have this qualified view point? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " The rant above is a classic example of not understanding the institutions which govern this great country. It does not surprise me that people who demand violent action are indeed the true threat to democracy, and I hope the authorities find these thugs and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement " This is not correct on two counts: 1) Whilst Parliament is sitting, it votes whether or not to have a conference recess. Parliament does not have to be in recess just because conferences are on. Given Johnson's cavalier behaviour it is far from a given, with a minority Govt that he would have been able to recess Parliament. 2) Boris Johnson or Rees-Mogg could have attached an affidavit confirming that the reason for the prorogation was "XYZ". So why didn't they do it? They didn't do it because if internal memo's and documents from within Govt ever surfaced in the future they would be held in contempt of Court. Lying under oath is not a good thing to have on your cv There is nothing grey about the unanimous decision of 11 BRITISH Judges making sovereign decisions about BRITISH matters in BRITISH Courts based on the evidence placed before them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement This is not correct on two counts: 1) Whilst Parliament is sitting, it votes whether or not to have a conference recess. Parliament does not have to be in recess just because conferences are on. Given Johnson's cavalier behaviour it is far from a given, with a minority Govt that he would have been able to recess Parliament. 2) Boris Johnson or Rees-Mogg could have attached an affidavit confirming that the reason for the prorogation was "XYZ". So why didn't they do it? They didn't do it because if internal memo's and documents from within Govt ever surfaced in the future they would be held in contempt of Court. Lying under oath is not a good thing to have on your cv There is nothing grey about the unanimous decision of 11 BRITISH Judges making sovereign decisions about BRITISH matters in BRITISH Courts based on the evidence placed before them." Minor point why the text shouting British? I’m pretty sure nobody thought it was the Supreme Court of Kathmandu. 1 yep correct but I didn’t see news of outraged opposition MPs refusing to go to conference and demanding the right to vote on a conference break 2 That’s a big if you got there unless you can supply said memos and or documentary evidence if it exists or still does or isn’t classified for the next 75 years | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmmm normally not one for doing politics on here but an interesting discussion here. If we Take the now emotionally charged word of brexit out of the equation, consider this if you will. I am waiting to read the conclusions of the Supreme Court and evidence submitted to prove that Johnson lied to the Queen about the reason for the porogation, as these conversations are not as far as I’m aware recorded in any way can there be any evidence of falsehood? so really unless there’s been a hitherto unannounced breakthrough in mind reading tech or possibly mystic meg was a star witness. The ruling today is the Supreme courts OPINION and not based in legal fact or evidence based. That my friends is where the danger to democracy lies the unelected judiciary ruling porogation illegal in this one case, when it has been used a number of times before for nakedly political purposes just one example is one John Major to avoid publication of a report into cash for questions just before a general election porogued parliament As Lady Hale said, on the evidence presented to the court there was no reason, let alone a good one, for a prorogation of five weeks. The government had the opportunity to present such evidence, but it failed to do so. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the Court of Session in the earlier case in Edinburgh, received a witness statement from the government stating the reasons for the prorogation. The only reasonable conclusion is that the government couldn't find a minister or civil servant willing to sign their name on a document they knew to be a lie. Apologies for the delay work intruded Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement Are you suggesting the 11 supreme judges are wrong in their judgement "I’m suggesting the possibility that the claimants team was better at arguing the case based on not much or that personal feeling on the brexit question may have coloured the judges opinion as it appears we no longer have middle ground on the issue | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Apologies for the delay work intruded Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement I presume you are a Supreme Court judge then to be able to have this qualified view point? " So I have to be a judge to have a point of view based on evidence that I’m aware of? Best get rid of trial by jury then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Apologies for the delay work intruded Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement I presume you are a Supreme Court judge then to be able to have this qualified view point? So I have to be a judge to have a point of view based on evidence that I’m aware of? Best get rid of trial by jury then" Now your getting mixed up even more | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Shy News has a breaking story of an un redacted document leaked showing the Attorney General saying the prorogation of Parliament was lawful. So it can be inferred the PM wasn’t lying but misinformed. This won’t change the outcome but shows how different lawyers have different interpretations of the law. " The only interpretation of the law that’s relevant is that of the Supreme Court. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Apologies for the delay work intruded Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement I presume you are a Supreme Court judge then to be able to have this qualified view point? So I have to be a judge to have a point of view based on evidence that I’m aware of? Best get rid of trial by jury then" So your point of view is more valid than 11 Supreme Court judges?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmmm normally not one for doing politics on here but an interesting discussion here. If we Take the now emotionally charged word of brexit out of the equation, consider this if you will. I am waiting to read the conclusions of the Supreme Court and evidence submitted to prove that Johnson lied to the Queen about the reason for the porogation, as these conversations are not as far as I’m aware recorded in any way can there be any evidence of falsehood? so really unless there’s been a hitherto unannounced breakthrough in mind reading tech or possibly mystic meg was a star witness. The ruling today is the Supreme courts OPINION and not based in legal fact or evidence based. That my friends is where the danger to democracy lies the unelected judiciary ruling porogation illegal in this one case, when it has been used a number of times before for nakedly political purposes just one example is one John Major to avoid publication of a report into cash for questions just before a general election porogued parliament As Lady Hale said, on the evidence presented to the court there was no reason, let alone a good one, for a prorogation of five weeks. The government had the opportunity to present such evidence, but it failed to do so. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the Court of Session in the earlier case in Edinburgh, received a witness statement from the government stating the reasons for the prorogation. The only reasonable conclusion is that the government couldn't find a minister or civil servant willing to sign their name on a document they knew to be a lie. Apologies for the delay work intruded Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement Are you suggesting the 11 supreme judges are wrong in their judgement
I’m suggesting the possibility that the claimants team was better at arguing the case based on not much or that personal feeling on the brexit question may have coloured the judges opinion as it appears we no longer have middle ground on the issue "All 11 judges let their personal feelings about Brexit influence their judgement? Really?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Shy News has a breaking story of an un redacted document leaked showing the Attorney General saying the prorogation of Parliament was lawful. So it can be inferred the PM wasn’t lying but misinformed. This won’t change the outcome but shows how different lawyers have different interpretations of the law. " I mentioned this in a different thread... Would suggest its Geoffrey Cox that's going under the Brexit bus! PM asks his AG "is it lawful for parliament to be prorogued" AG - "yes it is lawful" (said in a commanding deep voice )
PM - ok, thanks
Supreme Court then rules its unlawful - PM says - im only going on the advice given to me by the AG...
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Apologies for the delay work intruded Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement I presume you are a Supreme Court judge then to be able to have this qualified view point? So I have to be a judge to have a point of view based on evidence that I’m aware of? Best get rid of trial by jury then So your point of view is more valid than 11 Supreme Court judges?? " Mine certainly has several orders of magnitude less weight when it comes to affecting anything, as to validity I don’t think I’ve said anything that is so way off base or incorrect that its not a valid point of view | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Shy News has a breaking story of an un redacted document leaked showing the Attorney General saying the prorogation of Parliament was lawful. So it can be inferred the PM wasn’t lying but misinformed. This won’t change the outcome but shows how different lawyers have different interpretations of the law. I mentioned this in a different thread... Would suggest its Geoffrey Cox that's going under the Brexit bus! PM asks his AG "is it lawful for parliament to be prorogued" AG - "yes it is lawful" (said in a commanding deep voice )
PM - ok, thanks
Supreme Court then rules its unlawful - PM says - im only going on the advice given to me by the AG...
"Much like Tony Blair, Tony Blair “AG is it lawful to war with Iraq?” AG “Yes Mr Blair” Tony Blair”Thank you AG” And rest is history  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Shy News has a breaking story of an un redacted document leaked showing the Attorney General saying the prorogation of Parliament was lawful. So it can be inferred the PM wasn’t lying but misinformed. This won’t change the outcome but shows how different lawyers have different interpretations of the law. I mentioned this in a different thread... Would suggest its Geoffrey Cox that's going under the Brexit bus! PM asks his AG "is it lawful for parliament to be prorogued" AG - "yes it is lawful" (said in a commanding deep voice )
PM - ok, thanks
Supreme Court then rules its unlawful - PM says - im only going on the advice given to me by the AG...
Much like Tony Blair,
Tony Blair “AG is it lawful to war with Iraq?”
AG “Yes Mr Blair”
Tony Blair”Thank you AG”
And rest is history "What aboutery doesn’t improve the quality of discussion  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you agree with the judges or not. The only answer is a general election. The usual suspects were on the steps of the court all spouting for Boris to resign. Yet when presented with the only logical solution when they were actually in parliament, they ran away scared. Says everything about them." . .
They won't go for an election because they don't care what the people want, it's about what parliament want silly  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you agree with the judges or not. The only answer is a general election. The usual suspects were on the steps of the court all spouting for Boris to resign. Yet when presented with the only logical solution when they were actually in parliament, they ran away scared. Says everything about them.. .
They won't go for an election because they don't care what the people want, it's about what parliament want silly "Look who is back? Did you enjoy today’s judgement | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Apologies for the delay work intruded Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement I presume you are a Supreme Court judge then to be able to have this qualified view point? So I have to be a judge to have a point of view based on evidence that I’m aware of? Best get rid of trial by jury then So your point of view is more valid than 11 Supreme Court judges?? Mine certainly has several orders of magnitude less weight when it comes to affecting anything, as to validity I don’t think I’ve said anything that is so way off base or incorrect that its not a valid point of view " Do you agree or not with the supreme courts judgement?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Shy News has a breaking story of an un redacted document leaked showing the Attorney General saying the prorogation of Parliament was lawful. So it can be inferred the PM wasn’t lying but misinformed. This won’t change the outcome but shows how different lawyers have different interpretations of the law. I mentioned this in a different thread... Would suggest its Geoffrey Cox that's going under the Brexit bus! PM asks his AG "is it lawful for parliament to be prorogued" AG - "yes it is lawful" (said in a commanding deep voice )
PM - ok, thanks
Supreme Court then rules its unlawful - PM says - im only going on the advice given to me by the AG...
"Who chose to have Geoffrey Cox as his Attorney General?? Have a think? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Apologies for the delay work intruded Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement I presume you are a Supreme Court judge then to be able to have this qualified view point? So I have to be a judge to have a point of view based on evidence that I’m aware of? Best get rid of trial by jury then So your point of view is more valid than 11 Supreme Court judges?? Mine certainly has several orders of magnitude less weight when it comes to affecting anything, as to validity I don’t think I’ve said anything that is so way off base or incorrect that its not a valid point of view Do you agree or not with the supreme courts judgement?? " Why do you need to know? The validity of the point of view I’ve espoused shouldn’t depend on if I agree with it or not | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Shy News has a breaking story of an un redacted document leaked showing the Attorney General saying the prorogation of Parliament was lawful. So it can be inferred the PM wasn’t lying but misinformed. This won’t change the outcome but shows how different lawyers have different interpretations of the law. I mentioned this in a different thread... Would suggest its Geoffrey Cox that's going under the Brexit bus! PM asks his AG "is it lawful for parliament to be prorogued" AG - "yes it is lawful" (said in a commanding deep voice )
PM - ok, thanks
Supreme Court then rules its unlawful - PM says - im only going on the advice given to me by the AG...
Who chose to have Geoffrey Cox as his Attorney General?? Have a think? "So... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Shy News has a breaking story of an un redacted document leaked showing the Attorney General saying the prorogation of Parliament was lawful. So it can be inferred the PM wasn’t lying but misinformed. This won’t change the outcome but shows how different lawyers have different interpretations of the law. I mentioned this in a different thread... Would suggest its Geoffrey Cox that's going under the Brexit bus! PM asks his AG "is it lawful for parliament to be prorogued" AG - "yes it is lawful" (said in a commanding deep voice )
PM - ok, thanks
Supreme Court then rules its unlawful - PM says - im only going on the advice given to me by the AG...
Who chose to have Geoffrey Cox as his Attorney General?? Have a think?
So...
"Perhaps he should choose his advisor more wisely? Boris is finished, the sooner you get used to it the sooner you will get over it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Apologies for the delay work intruded Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement I presume you are a Supreme Court judge then to be able to have this qualified view point? So I have to be a judge to have a point of view based on evidence that I’m aware of? Best get rid of trial by jury then So your point of view is more valid than 11 Supreme Court judges?? Mine certainly has several orders of magnitude less weight when it comes to affecting anything, as to validity I don’t think I’ve said anything that is so way off base or incorrect that its not a valid point of view Do you agree or not with the supreme courts judgement?? Why do you need to know? The validity of the point of view I’ve espoused shouldn’t depend on if I agree with it or not " Do you want your point of view to be taken seriously? I actually think the Supreme Court judges are Aliens that have been sent here to destabilise the UK to allow for their imminent attack . The validity of my point of view I have espoused shouldn’t depend on if you agree or not | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Apologies for the delay work intruded Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement I presume you are a Supreme Court judge then to be able to have this qualified view point? So I have to be a judge to have a point of view based on evidence that I’m aware of? Best get rid of trial by jury then So your point of view is more valid than 11 Supreme Court judges?? Mine certainly has several orders of magnitude less weight when it comes to affecting anything, as to validity I don’t think I’ve said anything that is so way off base or incorrect that its not a valid point of view Do you agree or not with the supreme courts judgement?? Why do you need to know? The validity of the point of view I’ve espoused shouldn’t depend on if I agree with it or not " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " 1) have to say your post made me giggle..... so much pish crammed into so few lines..... 2) we actually have 12 supreme court justices in the UK, of which there is normally only 5, 7 or in rare occasions 9 judges assigned to cases based on the type and nature of a case.... this matter was thought to be so constitutionally important that for only the 2nd time 11 of the 12 judges stood for a case.... only other time it has happened.... gina miller vs govt on who had the right in envoke A50!! you have to admit though.... winning 11-0 is something special!!!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you agree with the judges or not. The only answer is a general election. The usual suspects were on the steps of the court all spouting for Boris to resign. Yet when presented with the only logical solution when they were actually in parliament, they ran away scared. Says everything about them.. .
They won't go for an election because they don't care what the people want, it's about what parliament want silly
Look who is back? Did you enjoy today’s judgement ". I was prorogued by a higher power .
Jimmy the shoeshine boy is a squealer  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Brexit. It disgusts me that we are still in the EU. It's a simple reason too. We had a referendum. The option was to Remain in the EU or Leave the EU. Now, they were the choices. No matter the reason why people voted Remain or Leave. It is not relevant. People had their reasons for voting but everyone had to weigh up those reasons and then come to a final conclusion. Remain or Leave. The result was Leave the European Union. With that established. Article 50 was triggered and passsed unanimously in parliament. Next step is for the government to go into talks with the EU to see if they could negotiate a deal for leaving. The date of leaving was set. So that the UK would leave on the 29th March. If the UK and the EU were unable to come to a negotiated deal for leaving, then the UK would leave the EU on 29th March without a deal. The deal before leaving is the bonus, if it is beneficial to the UK. If not, then we leave on WTO terms and can negotiate again at a later stage as other countries do with the EU currently when looking to trade etc. Now this process is very simple in theory. The hard part is the negotiations. We would all like a nice sweet arrangement with the EU going forward but only if it is good for the UK. Which currently there isn't. So the next step is to leave with no deal. Now. If the result would've been Remain. We would still have our Euro sceptics and no doubt they would continue to have the discussions a out the EU, as they have done for years. I would not envisage the Leave camp getting on like the Remainers are currently. It's an embarrassment. We are the UK. We are a strong global player and we will prosper and survive as a nation, as we have done for centuries. The lack of faith in ourselves from the Remain camp is pathetic. Accept the result and show a bit of integrity. " nice rant.... 1 teeny issue though... the govt were argueing in the supreme court was that this prorouging had nothing to do with brexit and was standard operating procedure...... the court didn't agree..... 11-0 the court said he did it to prevent parliament from carrying out there legal job..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Brexit. It disgusts me that we are still in the EU. It's a simple reason too. We had a referendum. The option was to Remain in the EU or Leave the EU. Now, they were the choices. No matter the reason why people voted Remain or Leave. It is not relevant. People had their reasons for voting but everyone had to weigh up those reasons and then come to a final conclusion. Remain or Leave. The result was Leave the European Union. With that established. Article 50 was triggered and passsed unanimously in parliament. Next step is for the government to go into talks with the EU to see if they could negotiate a deal for leaving. The date of leaving was set. So that the UK would leave on the 29th March. If the UK and the EU were unable to come to a negotiated deal for leaving, then the UK would leave the EU on 29th March without a deal. The deal before leaving is the bonus, if it is beneficial to the UK. If not, then we leave on WTO terms and can negotiate again at a later stage as other countries do with the EU currently when looking to trade etc. Now this process is very simple in theory. The hard part is the negotiations. We would all like a nice sweet arrangement with the EU going forward but only if it is good for the UK. Which currently there isn't. So the next step is to leave with no deal. Now. If the result would've been Remain. We would still have our Euro sceptics and no doubt they would continue to have the discussions a out the EU, as they have done for years. I would not envisage the Leave camp getting on like the Remainers are currently. It's an embarrassment. We are the UK. We are a strong global player and we will prosper and survive as a nation, as we have done for centuries. The lack of faith in ourselves from the Remain camp is pathetic. Accept the result and show a bit of integrity. nice rant.... 1 teeny issue though... the govt were argueing in the supreme court was that this prorouging had nothing to do with brexit and was standard operating procedure...... the court didn't agree..... 11-0 the court said he did it to prevent parliament from carrying out there legal job....." With regards to that. It's a result of parliamentary and private remainers trying to derail the referendum result. Remainers can moan as much as they want. The simple fact is that they are acting like a petulant child. I voted Leave. If the result had went the other way. I would not bat an eyelid. Remainers have been searching for ways to stop Brexit from day dot. It's pathetic. No matter what they say their lawful reasons or whatever. They have no integrity. I pity them to be honest. Living this lie. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Brexit. It disgusts me that we are still in the EU. It's a simple reason too. We had a referendum. The option was to Remain in the EU or Leave the EU. Now, they were the choices. No matter the reason why people voted Remain or Leave. It is not relevant. People had their reasons for voting but everyone had to weigh up those reasons and then come to a final conclusion. Remain or Leave. The result was Leave the European Union. With that established. Article 50 was triggered and passsed unanimously in parliament. Next step is for the government to go into talks with the EU to see if they could negotiate a deal for leaving. The date of leaving was set. So that the UK would leave on the 29th March. If the UK and the EU were unable to come to a negotiated deal for leaving, then the UK would leave the EU on 29th March without a deal. The deal before leaving is the bonus, if it is beneficial to the UK. If not, then we leave on WTO terms and can negotiate again at a later stage as other countries do with the EU currently when looking to trade etc. Now this process is very simple in theory. The hard part is the negotiations. We would all like a nice sweet arrangement with the EU going forward but only if it is good for the UK. Which currently there isn't. So the next step is to leave with no deal. Now. If the result would've been Remain. We would still have our Euro sceptics and no doubt they would continue to have the discussions a out the EU, as they have done for years. I would not envisage the Leave camp getting on like the Remainers are currently. It's an embarrassment. We are the UK. We are a strong global player and we will prosper and survive as a nation, as we have done for centuries. The lack of faith in ourselves from the Remain camp is pathetic. Accept the result and show a bit of integrity. nice rant.... 1 teeny issue though... the govt were argueing in the supreme court was that this prorouging had nothing to do with brexit and was standard operating procedure...... the court didn't agree..... 11-0 the court said he did it to prevent parliament from carrying out there legal job..... With regards to that. It's a result of parliamentary and private remainers trying to derail the referendum result. Remainers can moan as much as they want. The simple fact is that they are acting like a petulant child. I voted Leave. If the result had went the other way. I would not bat an eyelid. Remainers have been searching for ways to stop Brexit from day dot. It's pathetic. No matter what they say their lawful reasons or whatever. They have no integrity. I pity them to be honest. Living this lie. " So are you saying that proroguing Parliament was about Brexit after all? Funny cos Boris and most of his Disciples have spent the last two weeks saying that it had nothing to do with Brexit at all and was normal Parliamentary process. It is good that at least some Brexiters can be honest and open about their wish to trash Parliament, the judiciary and society in order to fulfil the fantasies of their extraordinarily wealthy heartthrobs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After today’s Supreme Court judgement, has the ability of a strong majority government to govern been affected? Will every contentious issue now be challenged through the courts, thereby stifling the ability of a government to get things done?" No. The courts have always been an option for challenging the government's decisions when they are illegal. Were you not aware of that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After today’s Supreme Court judgement, has the ability of a strong majority government to govern been affected? Will every contentious issue now be challenged through the courts, thereby stifling the ability of a government to get things done? No. The courts have always been an option for challenging the government's decisions when they are illegal. Were you not aware of that?" Why have other contentious issues not been elevated to the courts, for example the decision to invade Iraq ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After today’s Supreme Court judgement, has the ability of a strong majority government to govern been affected? Will every contentious issue now be challenged through the courts, thereby stifling the ability of a government to get things done? No. The courts have always been an option for challenging the government's decisions when they are illegal. Were you not aware of that? Why have other contentious issues not been elevated to the courts, for example the decision to invade Iraq ? " Picking a completely different and much more complex issue and saying 'why wasn't this treated exactly the same!' is a bit silly, no? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Brexit. It disgusts me that we are still in the EU. It's a simple reason too. We had a referendum. The option was to Remain in the EU or Leave the EU. Now, they were the choices. No matter the reason why people voted Remain or Leave. It is not relevant. People had their reasons for voting but everyone had to weigh up those reasons and then come to a final conclusion. Remain or Leave. The result was Leave the European Union. With that established. Article 50 was triggered and passsed unanimously in parliament. Next step is for the government to go into talks with the EU to see if they could negotiate a deal for leaving. The date of leaving was set. So that the UK would leave on the 29th March. If the UK and the EU were unable to come to a negotiated deal for leaving, then the UK would leave the EU on 29th March without a deal. The deal before leaving is the bonus, if it is beneficial to the UK. If not, then we leave on WTO terms and can negotiate again at a later stage as other countries do with the EU currently when looking to trade etc. Now this process is very simple in theory. The hard part is the negotiations. We would all like a nice sweet arrangement with the EU going forward but only if it is good for the UK. Which currently there isn't. So the next step is to leave with no deal. Now. If the result would've been Remain. We would still have our Euro sceptics and no doubt they would continue to have the discussions a out the EU, as they have done for years. I would not envisage the Leave camp getting on like the Remainers are currently. It's an embarrassment. We are the UK. We are a strong global player and we will prosper and survive as a nation, as we have done for centuries. The lack of faith in ourselves from the Remain camp is pathetic. Accept the result and show a bit of integrity. nice rant.... 1 teeny issue though... the govt were argueing in the supreme court was that this prorouging had nothing to do with brexit and was standard operating procedure...... the court didn't agree..... 11-0 the court said he did it to prevent parliament from carrying out there legal job..... With regards to that. It's a result of parliamentary and private remainers trying to derail the referendum result. Remainers can moan as much as they want. The simple fact is that they are acting like a petulant child. I voted Leave. If the result had went the other way. I would not bat an eyelid. Remainers have been searching for ways to stop Brexit from day dot. It's pathetic. No matter what they say their lawful reasons or whatever. They have no integrity. I pity them to be honest. Living this lie. " You mention 'disgust'. It's an appropriate term against a government that does not behave lawfully.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After today’s Supreme Court judgement, has the ability of a strong majority government to govern been affected? Will every contentious issue now be challenged through the courts, thereby stifling the ability of a government to get things done? No. The courts have always been an option for challenging the government's decisions when they are illegal. Were you not aware of that? Why have other contentious issues not been elevated to the courts, for example the decision to invade Iraq ? Picking a completely different and much more complex issue and saying 'why wasn't this treated exactly the same!' is a bit silly, no? " I don’t think so. I just feel today’s judgement will have much wider implications . The deployment of armed forces is a prerogative power ... If court powers have always been available, and given the strength of feeling about invading Iraq , why no court challenges ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After today’s Supreme Court judgement, has the ability of a strong majority government to govern been affected? Will every contentious issue now be challenged through the courts, thereby stifling the ability of a government to get things done? No. The courts have always been an option for challenging the government's decisions when they are illegal. Were you not aware of that? Why have other contentious issues not been elevated to the courts, for example the decision to invade Iraq ? Picking a completely different and much more complex issue and saying 'why wasn't this treated exactly the same!' is a bit silly, no? I don’t think so. I just feel today’s judgement will have much wider implications . The deployment of armed forces is a prerogative power ... If court powers have always been available, and given the strength of feeling about invading Iraq , why no court challenges ... " Iraq was voted through by Parliament for one thing, unlike proroguing. (including by all but 2 Conservatives, just as a reminder, as right wingers love to try and absolve themselves on that one). And again, it was a completely different circumstance in all kinds of ways. Why there wasn't a successful legal challenge is unlikely to be because it could have happened but no one had thought of it! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After today’s Supreme Court judgement, has the ability of a strong majority government to govern been affected? Will every contentious issue now be challenged through the courts, thereby stifling the ability of a government to get things done? No. The courts have always been an option for challenging the government's decisions when they are illegal. Were you not aware of that? Why have other contentious issues not been elevated to the courts, for example the decision to invade Iraq ? Picking a completely different and much more complex issue and saying 'why wasn't this treated exactly the same!' is a bit silly, no? I don’t think so. I just feel today’s judgement will have much wider implications . The deployment of armed forces is a prerogative power ... If court powers have always been available, and given the strength of feeling about invading Iraq , why no court challenges ... " . That's easy. Because 70% of parliament and 95% of the media also backed attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria... It's always been the people Vs parliament, were just waking up to the realities of the situation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " You what? So this was the day that democracy died? Rather than, I dunno, the day an unelected Prime Minister shut down Parliament for five weeks, thus preventing Parliament from debating and trying to sort out the political and looming economic crisis that is Brexit? Um, OK.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After today’s Supreme Court judgement, has the ability of a strong majority government to govern been affected? Will every contentious issue now be challenged through the courts, thereby stifling the ability of a government to get things done? No. The courts have always been an option for challenging the government's decisions when they are illegal. Were you not aware of that? Why have other contentious issues not been elevated to the courts, for example the decision to invade Iraq ? Picking a completely different and much more complex issue and saying 'why wasn't this treated exactly the same!' is a bit silly, no? I don’t think so. I just feel today’s judgement will have much wider implications . The deployment of armed forces is a prerogative power ... If court powers have always been available, and given the strength of feeling about invading Iraq , why no court challenges ... " The issue isn't prerogative powers per se, it's the use of a prerogative power that infringes the fundamental constitutional principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and government accountability to Parliament without good reason. The judgment lays it out quite clearly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " Very true and the legal profession does well out of being in the EU | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree, people who voted for brexit should take to the streets. I want a good look at them." Right will prevail we are not thugs like remoaners | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree, people who voted for brexit should take to the streets. I want a good look at them.Right will prevail we are not thugs like remoaners" I suspect most would be too embarrassed to turn up. Like before the brexit vote they were too embarrassed to say they were voting leave. Very meek people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree, people who voted for brexit should take to the streets. I want a good look at them.Right will prevail we are not thugs like remoaners I suspect most would be too embarrassed to turn up. Like before the brexit vote they were too embarrassed to say they were voting leave. Very meek people." But winners heard the satying,"empty vessels make the most sound" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " Hilarious. You just ticked every box of satire on this thread
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/929773 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree, people who voted for brexit should take to the streets. I want a good look at them.Right will prevail we are not thugs like remoaners I suspect most would be too embarrassed to turn up. Like before the brexit vote they were too embarrassed to say they were voting leave. Very meek people.But winners heard the satying,"empty vessels make the most sound"" I honestly would like to see them all turn out, just to prove they are all still behind their vote. It would be a nice clear message. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Brexit. It disgusts me that we are still in the EU. It's a simple reason too. We had a referendum. The option was to Remain in the EU or Leave the EU. Now, they were the choices. No matter the reason why people voted Remain or Leave. It is not relevant. People had their reasons for voting but everyone had to weigh up those reasons and then come to a final conclusion. Remain or Leave. The result was Leave the European Union. With that established. Article 50 was triggered and passsed unanimously in parliament. Next step is for the government to go into talks with the EU to see if they could negotiate a deal for leaving. The date of leaving was set. So that the UK would leave on the 29th March. If the UK and the EU were unable to come to a negotiated deal for leaving, then the UK would leave the EU on 29th March without a deal. The deal before leaving is the bonus, if it is beneficial to the UK. If not, then we leave on WTO terms and can negotiate again at a later stage as other countries do with the EU currently when looking to trade etc. Now this process is very simple in theory. The hard part is the negotiations. We would all like a nice sweet arrangement with the EU going forward but only if it is good for the UK. Which currently there isn't. So the next step is to leave with no deal. Now. If the result would've been Remain. We would still have our Euro sceptics and no doubt they would continue to have the discussions a out the EU, as they have done for years. I would not envisage the Leave camp getting on like the Remainers are currently. It's an embarrassment. We are the UK. We are a strong global player and we will prosper and survive as a nation, as we have done for centuries. The lack of faith in ourselves from the Remain camp is pathetic. Accept the result and show a bit of integrity. nice rant.... 1 teeny issue though... the govt were argueing in the supreme court was that this prorouging had nothing to do with brexit and was standard operating procedure...... the court didn't agree..... 11-0 the court said he did it to prevent parliament from carrying out there legal job..... With regards to that. It's a result of parliamentary and private remainers trying to derail the referendum result. Remainers can moan as much as they want. The simple fact is that they are acting like a petulant child. I voted Leave. If the result had went the other way. I would not bat an eyelid. Remainers have been searching for ways to stop Brexit from day dot. It's pathetic. No matter what they say their lawful reasons or whatever. They have no integrity. I pity them to be honest. Living this lie. So are you saying that proroguing Parliament was about Brexit after all? Funny cos Boris and most of his Disciples have spent the last two weeks saying that it had nothing to do with Brexit at all and was normal Parliamentary process. It is good that at least some Brexiters can be honest and open about their wish to trash Parliament, the judiciary and society in order to fulfil the fantasies of their extraordinarily wealthy heartthrobs. " Indeed, leavers just can't decide what it is their trying to at all | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Whether you agree with the judges or not. The only answer is a general election. The usual suspects were on the steps of the court all spouting for Boris to resign. Yet when presented with the only logical solution when they were actually in parliament, they ran away scared. Says everything about them. Well I had no view on Parliament being prorogued because I didn't know the legal side and implications. Something which no one on here probably did either but the Judges have taken days to come to their conclusion and if they say unanimously it was unlawful then it was unlawful " Wasn't that long ago people were burned at the stake after being unaminously declared witches. Doesn't mean the decision was right, merely suited the opinion of the time | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wasn't that long ago people were burned at the stake after being unaminously declared witches. Doesn't mean the decision was right, merely suited the opinion of the time "And the relevance to this case is..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
'Brexiter insists Supreme Court is full of despicable Remoaning traitors
September 24, 2019
Written by Rich Smith
The idea of an independent judiciary is a thing of the past as Brexit voters have this morning determined that the supreme court is full of traitorous remoaners who want to see the country fall.
After the court gave a unanimous verdict that the government’s prorogation of parliament for five weeks was unlawful, people who are happy to bend the rules in their favour have insisted the decision is an outrage.
“How dare these judges sit and review the evidence and come to a conclusion I disagree with!” hammered Brexit supporter Simon Williams into his keyboard a few minutes ago.
“17 million people didn’t vote for Brexit just so the Supreme Court could go around applying the rule of law in an independent fashion – clearly they are all remoaners who need to get over it and realise we won.
“I’m sure some proper patriots – like the ones who work at the Daily Mail – will be getting ready to tell us exactly why these judges are evil and shouldn’t be trusted. It can’t come soon enough for me!”
Meanwhile, slightly less emotional Brexiters have simply called the result the end of sovereignty.
As one explained, “This idea that the supreme court justices can review the facts of the case and come to a dispassionate conclusion is completely absurd. It all comes down to whether they love this country, or hate it.
“Clearly this lot hate our country, there is no other possible explanation. When we said we wanted to take back control of our laws and return parliamentary sovereignty, we only meant in ways that we agreed with.”' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Daily Thump is way ahead of you
'Brexiter insists Supreme Court is full of despicable Remoaning traitors
September 24, 2019
Written by Rich Smith
The idea of an independent judiciary is a thing of the past as Brexit voters have this morning determined that the supreme court is full of traitorous remoaners who want to see the country fall.
After the court gave a unanimous verdict that the government’s prorogation of parliament for five weeks was unlawful, people who are happy to bend the rules in their favour have insisted the decision is an outrage.
“How dare these judges sit and review the evidence and come to a conclusion I disagree with!” hammered Brexit supporter Simon Williams into his keyboard a few minutes ago.
“17 million people didn’t vote for Brexit just so the Supreme Court could go around applying the rule of law in an independent fashion – clearly they are all remoaners who need to get over it and realise we won.
“I’m sure some proper patriots – like the ones who work at the Daily Mail – will be getting ready to tell us exactly why these judges are evil and shouldn’t be trusted. It can’t come soon enough for me!”
Meanwhile, slightly less emotional Brexiters have simply called the result the end of sovereignty.
As one explained, “This idea that the supreme court justices can review the facts of the case and come to a dispassionate conclusion is completely absurd. It all comes down to whether they love this country, or hate it.
“Clearly this lot hate our country, there is no other possible explanation. When we said we wanted to take back control of our laws and return parliamentary sovereignty, we only meant in ways that we agreed with.”'"For once I agree with the Mash | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Daily Thump is way ahead of you
'Brexiter insists Supreme Court is full of despicable Remoaning traitors
September 24, 2019
Written by Rich Smith
The idea of an independent judiciary is a thing of the past as Brexit voters have this morning determined that the supreme court is full of traitorous remoaners who want to see the country fall.
After the court gave a unanimous verdict that the government’s prorogation of parliament for five weeks was unlawful, people who are happy to bend the rules in their favour have insisted the decision is an outrage.
“How dare these judges sit and review the evidence and come to a conclusion I disagree with!” hammered Brexit supporter Simon Williams into his keyboard a few minutes ago.
“17 million people didn’t vote for Brexit just so the Supreme Court could go around applying the rule of law in an independent fashion – clearly they are all remoaners who need to get over it and realise we won.
“I’m sure some proper patriots – like the ones who work at the Daily Mail – will be getting ready to tell us exactly why these judges are evil and shouldn’t be trusted. It can’t come soon enough for me!”
Meanwhile, slightly less emotional Brexiters have simply called the result the end of sovereignty.
As one explained, “This idea that the supreme court justices can review the facts of the case and come to a dispassionate conclusion is completely absurd. It all comes down to whether they love this country, or hate it.
“Clearly this lot hate our country, there is no other possible explanation. When we said we wanted to take back control of our laws and return parliamentary sovereignty, we only meant in ways that we agreed with.”'
For once I agree with the Mash "The Mash and The Thump are my primary news sources now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " I'd just point out that the US has far more than 9 Supreme Court judges. There are 9 on the UNITED STATES Supreme Court, but that only covers matters of federal law and the US Constitution. Every state has its own State Supreme Court, with between 5 and 9 judges each. Across the 50 states it adds up to 330 judges on the state supreme courts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wasn't that long ago people were burned at the stake after being unaminously declared witches. Doesn't mean the decision was right, merely suited the opinion of the time
And the relevance to this case is..... "History and greater wisdom and knowledge of future generations show witch hunts up for what they are. A bunch of morons scared of something a bit different to what they are used to and are incapable of understanding. These campaigners are the morons, the legal system just goes with it even though the evidence is just here say. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
‘You lied to me, you fat f**k,’ says Queen
11th September 2019
THE Queen has been heard to murmur ‘You lied to me, you f**king fat f**k’ while watching the news.
The monarch greeted the announcement that the prime minister’s advice to her on prorogation was illegal by narrowing her eyes and pointing one furious finger.
A maidservant heard her continue: “You know what happens to people who lie to me? No, you don’t. Because nobody f**king lies to me, you prick.
“Think I haven’t seen kn*bheads like you strut in here puffed up with your own bullsh*t before? But I give them the death stare and I get the bloody truth.
“I knew. I knew before the words were lolling out of your lying mouth. I had to wait. But now? Now you’re f**ked.”
Elizabeth II then glanced over to her husband the Duke of Edinburgh, nodded and watched him speak a few words into a black telephone before she reclined with a thin-lipped smile. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " You really don't understand what democracy is do you? You wanted to take back control from Brussels and give power to our sovereign parliament and allow our courts to make decisions without EU interference and that's what is happening. Seems like you only want that stuff when it suits. Pathetic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you agree with the judges or not. The only answer is a general election. The usual suspects were on the steps of the court all spouting for Boris to resign. Yet when presented with the only logical solution when they were actually in parliament, they ran away scared. Says everything about them." Says they're clever enough to ensure that the fat philanderer does what the law says he has to do before going for an election. Go for an election now, parliament is shut down and no deal can happen on 31/10. Why would anyone other than a complete moron trust Johnson to do anything with honesty and integrity? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmmm normally not one for doing politics on here but an interesting discussion here. If we Take the now emotionally charged word of brexit out of the equation, consider this if you will. I am waiting to read the conclusions of the Supreme Court and evidence submitted to prove that Johnson lied to the Queen about the reason for the porogation, as these conversations are not as far as I’m aware recorded in any way can there be any evidence of falsehood? so really unless there’s been a hitherto unannounced breakthrough in mind reading tech or possibly mystic meg was a star witness. The ruling today is the Supreme courts OPINION and not based in legal fact or evidence based. That my friends is where the danger to democracy lies the unelected judiciary ruling porogation illegal in this one case, when it has been used a number of times before for nakedly political purposes just one example is one John Major to avoid publication of a report into cash for questions just before a general election porogued parliament As Lady Hale said, on the evidence presented to the court there was no reason, let alone a good one, for a prorogation of five weeks. The government had the opportunity to present such evidence, but it failed to do so. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the Court of Session in the earlier case in Edinburgh, received a witness statement from the government stating the reasons for the prorogation. The only reasonable conclusion is that the government couldn't find a minister or civil servant willing to sign their name on a document they knew to be a lie. Apologies for the delay work intruded Opinions were presented to the court as to why prorogration was 5 weeks, which The government position Stated was for a new session of parliament after the conference season as this has been the longest parliamentary session for a lot of years (which opposition parties had pointed out regularly) it was about 5-7 days over the usual length of shutdown, so far a reasonable validation whether it’s true or not is a different ball game. By convention (and possibly law I’d have to check that bit) nobody is privy to to the advice given to the monarch by the sitting PM so how would anyone be able to sign a statement as to what reason was given? So it was basically either the judiciary upholding the opinion that Johnson misled the Queen based on no evidence, or an incredible feat of mind reading to know that Johnson purposely misled the Queen, too many shades of grey in the judgement " You didn't read the judgement properly did you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. I'd just point out that the US has far more than 9 Supreme Court judges. There are 9 on the UNITED STATES Supreme Court, but that only covers matters of federal law and the US Constitution. Every state has its own State Supreme Court, with between 5 and 9 judges each. Across the 50 states it adds up to 330 judges on the state supreme courts." Pesky facts....how dare you post facts which make a rant look even more ridiculous? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wasn't that long ago people were burned at the stake after being unaminously declared witches. Doesn't mean the decision was right, merely suited the opinion of the time
And the relevance to this case is.....
History and greater wisdom and knowledge of future generations show witch hunts up for what they are. A bunch of morons scared of something a bit different to what they are used to and are incapable of understanding. These campaigners are the morons, the legal system just goes with it even though the evidence is just here say."The evidence was crystal clear. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. Wow... Just fucking wow. I can't help but wonder how 11 independent BRITISH judges, upholding BRITISH law and demanding that Parliament holds the Government to account is undemocratic? Presumably, riding roughshod over laws that are inconvenient is the right kind of democracy? This kind of post actually caricatures all the very many reasons why so many people voted to leave and demonstrates at a stroke just how politically and economically illiterate so many people in this country are. " Brilliant post! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. Very true and the legal profession does well out of being in the EU" ..as does the rest of the UK, just saying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " You don't even know how much I feel sorry for you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I kind of think it sparked back into life. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. You really don't understand what democracy is do you? You wanted to take back control from Brussels and give power to our sovereign parliament and allow our courts to make decisions without EU interference and that's what is happening. Seems like you only want that stuff when it suits. Pathetic " I know, some may say they didn't understand the basic concepts of what they were voting for | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Slowly the brexit myth is carefully unravelling, " We've been blasting every Brexit myth to pieces using good old common sense and facts for over 3 years now, it's nothing new | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. " A Barrister advised me yesterday that Boris could appeal to the European Court of Justice !!!!!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. A Barrister advised me yesterday that Boris could appeal to the European Court of Justice !!!!!!!" Sorry fella that’s incorrect. The European Court of Justice only rules on issues relating to the interpretation of EU law and disputes between member states. Because this is a domestic constitutional issue, the European court has no jurisdiction. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Brexit. It disgusts me that we are still in the EU. It's a simple reason too. We had a referendum. The option was to Remain in the EU or Leave the EU. Now, they were the choices. No matter the reason why people voted Remain or Leave. It is not relevant. People had their reasons for voting but everyone had to weigh up those reasons and then come to a final conclusion. Remain or Leave. The result was Leave the European Union. With that established. Article 50 was triggered and passsed unanimously in parliament. Next step is for the government to go into talks with the EU to see if they could negotiate a deal for leaving. The date of leaving was set. So that the UK would leave on the 29th March. If the UK and the EU were unable to come to a negotiated deal for leaving, then the UK would leave the EU on 29th March without a deal. The deal before leaving is the bonus, if it is beneficial to the UK. If not, then we leave on WTO terms and can negotiate again at a later stage as other countries do with the EU currently when looking to trade etc. Now this process is very simple in theory. The hard part is the negotiations. We would all like a nice sweet arrangement with the EU going forward but only if it is good for the UK. Which currently there isn't. So the next step is to leave with no deal. Now. If the result would've been Remain. We would still have our Euro sceptics and no doubt they would continue to have the discussions a out the EU, as they have done for years. I would not envisage the Leave camp getting on like the Remainers are currently. It's an embarrassment. We are the UK. We are a strong global player and we will prosper and survive as a nation, as we have done for centuries. The lack of faith in ourselves from the Remain camp is pathetic. Accept the result and show a bit of integrity. nice rant.... 1 teeny issue though... the govt were argueing in the supreme court was that this prorouging had nothing to do with brexit and was standard operating procedure...... the court didn't agree..... 11-0 the court said he did it to prevent parliament from carrying out there legal job..... With regards to that. It's a result of parliamentary and private remainers trying to derail the referendum result. Remainers can moan as much as they want. The simple fact is that they are acting like a petulant child. I voted Leave. If the result had went the other way. I would not bat an eyelid. Remainers have been searching for ways to stop Brexit from day dot. It's pathetic. No matter what they say their lawful reasons or whatever. They have no integrity. I pity them to be honest. Living this lie. You mention 'disgust'. It's an appropriate term against a government that does not behave lawfully. "Thank you for commenting. You made an interesting comment a few post ago. With regard to a user's response to the decision. You said, "it appears similar to sour grapes, as it wasn't the outcome you wanted or expected." I'll tell what is sour grapes. Sour grapes sums up every Remainer action since the referendum result. We are in this mess, not because of Cameron, not because of Leave voters, not because of this court decision....we are in this mess, because Remainers cannot accept the democratic vote of the people of the UK. It's that simple. You all deny it but, you are only fooling yourself. Everybody knows. It's sour grapes and yes, it disgusts me that you all can't admit it. Always trying to spin it to blame others. I think Remainers should have a little thought about something. Look around you. All the noise and the shouting is from remainers. Every trick possible is being researched to reverse what the people voted for. What do think is going to happen if you are successful in stopping Brexit via these methods. Leavers haven't really ssid much but, get on with it and respect the vote. What do you think will happen if you get your way? I'll tell you what will happen. You're going to see Leavers really start to come out of the woodwork....be careful what you wish for. The majority of the UK want to leave the EU. We will not surrender to the EU any further and we will not allow the EU to control our country. Remainers are fearful spineless idiots. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On one particular point I have to disagree with the OPs first statement. We do not live in a Oligarchy. We live in a Monarchy and what this ruling has done is pass ultimate control back to our monarch who at 94 years of age and possibly with the wisdom of age has decided that Brexit is not a good idea for her subjects and that her parliament needs to debate this and sort out a deal. I would not be at all surprised if at some point those 11 judges quietly asked her what she thought. The queen is probably surprisingly up with current events and not very happy at all with the way things have gone. My mum dies when she was 93 and was surprisingly up on current affairs and had not lost her marbles on bit before she passed away so why should the queen be any different. The monarchy has reasserted itself after nearly 400 years it has been asked to step back into the arena of politics and try to sort it out. Isn't that what remainers would want ?" A simple Binary vote has turned into the most seriously constitutional crisis since 1642 and the ruddy labour party is calling for another Binary vote. I just despair at how stupid these people are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh dear. We are in this mess for one very simple reason. The Conservative Party put forward a policy - a referendum - without any plan of any description to implement the outcome. Cameron ordered officials NOT to make any contingency plan for a Leave vote. So the country votes leave, there is no plan of any description for its implementation and Cameron scrapers. Everything that has happened, or not happened, since, can be traced to that abysmal failure of governance." Absolutely, the Tories should have supported leave, rather than remain, then they may have planned better. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It ain't rocket science. There were only two possible outcomes. The status quo and major upheaval. If you are going to ask the public to choose, you might think it reasonable to be ready for either outcome. To plan ahead. Not the Conservative Party. I will simply never understand why any party could be so stupid to call a referendum with absolutely no plan for its outcome. " Because they never expected the odds on favourite to lose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It ain't rocket science. There were only two possible outcomes. The status quo and major upheaval. If you are going to ask the public to choose, you might think it reasonable to be ready for either outcome. To plan ahead. Not the Conservative Party. I will simply never understand why any party could be so stupid to call a referendum with absolutely no plan for its outcome. " Because none of the parties understand the electorate, they simply ask the bathroom mirror if it agrees with them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It ain't rocket science. There were only two possible outcomes. The status quo and major upheaval. If you are going to ask the public to choose, you might think it reasonable to be ready for either outcome. To plan ahead. Not the Conservative Party. I will simply never understand why any party could be so stupid to call a referendum with absolutely no plan for its outcome. Because none of the parties understand the electorate, they simply ask the bathroom mirror if it agrees with them." Yet the electorate choose their politicians... You get the politicians you deserve.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It ain't rocket science. There were only two possible outcomes. The status quo and major upheaval. If you are going to ask the public to choose, you might think it reasonable to be ready for either outcome. To plan ahead. Not the Conservative Party. I will simply never understand why any party could be so stupid to call a referendum with absolutely no plan for its outcome. Because none of the parties understand the electorate, they simply ask the bathroom mirror if it agrees with them. Yet the electorate choose their politicians... You get the politicians you deserve.." Not a particular large portion of the electorate. The turn out for local elections often rather disappointing. Also, were you asked if you wanted Boris or JC as prime minister or leader of the opposition? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It ain't rocket science. There were only two possible outcomes. The status quo and major upheaval. If you are going to ask the public to choose, you might think it reasonable to be ready for either outcome. To plan ahead. Not the Conservative Party. I will simply never understand why any party could be so stupid to call a referendum with absolutely no plan for its outcome. Because they never expected the odds on favourite to lose. " Not to have any plans is beyond incompetent. It would be a failure for children doing their GCSEs, yet these entitled yobs are big with talk, especially if it's lecturing or patronizing others but feeble on very basic steps of action. You'd fire them from very junior jobs anywhere. Launching Article 50 similarly without a feasible plan, was atrocious dereliction of duty. Johnson follows suit, with the clock ticking away but devoid of tangible and meaningful withdrawal proposals, whilst ignoring the very simple concept of time and planning. The fact that other countries, our trading partners, thousands of businesses and millions of people are subject to imposition of changes and require suitable implementation notice periods, matters not to the avaricious bottom feeders | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It ain't rocket science. There were only two possible outcomes. The status quo and major upheaval. If you are going to ask the public to choose, you might think it reasonable to be ready for either outcome. To plan ahead. Not the Conservative Party. I will simply never understand why any party could be so stupid to call a referendum with absolutely no plan for its outcome. Because they never expected the odds on favourite to lose. Not to have any plans is beyond incompetent. It would be a failure for children doing their GCSEs, yet these entitled yobs are big with talk, especially if it's lecturing or patronizing others but feeble on very basic steps of action. You'd fire them from very junior jobs anywhere. Launching Article 50 similarly without a feasible plan, was atrocious dereliction of duty. Johnson follows suit, with the clock ticking away but devoid of tangible and meaningful withdrawal proposals, whilst ignoring the very simple concept of time and planning. The fact that other countries, our trading partners, thousands of businesses and millions of people are subject to imposition of changes and require suitable implementation notice periods, matters not to the avaricious bottom feeders" It was a dereliction of duty by the labour mps too in that case as they also voted to trigger it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Brexit. It disgusts me that we are still in the EU. It's a simple reason too. We had a referendum. The option was to Remain in the EU or Leave the EU. Now, they were the choices. No matter the reason why people voted Remain or Leave. It is not relevant. People had their reasons for voting but everyone had to weigh up those reasons and then come to a final conclusion. Remain or Leave. The result was Leave the European Union. With that established. Article 50 was triggered and passsed unanimously in parliament. Next step is for the government to go into talks with the EU to see if they could negotiate a deal for leaving. The date of leaving was set. So that the UK would leave on the 29th March. If the UK and the EU were unable to come to a negotiated deal for leaving, then the UK would leave the EU on 29th March without a deal. The deal before leaving is the bonus, if it is beneficial to the UK. If not, then we leave on WTO terms and can negotiate again at a later stage as other countries do with the EU currently when looking to trade etc. Now this process is very simple in theory. The hard part is the negotiations. We would all like a nice sweet arrangement with the EU going forward but only if it is good for the UK. Which currently there isn't. So the next step is to leave with no deal. Now. If the result would've been Remain. We would still have our Euro sceptics and no doubt they would continue to have the discussions a out the EU, as they have done for years. I would not envisage the Leave camp getting on like the Remainers are currently. It's an embarrassment. We are the UK. We are a strong global player and we will prosper and survive as a nation, as we have done for centuries. The lack of faith in ourselves from the Remain camp is pathetic. Accept the result and show a bit of integrity. nice rant.... 1 teeny issue though... the govt were argueing in the supreme court was that this prorouging had nothing to do with brexit and was standard operating procedure...... the court didn't agree..... 11-0 the court said he did it to prevent parliament from carrying out there legal job..... With regards to that. It's a result of parliamentary and private remainers trying to derail the referendum result. Remainers can moan as much as they want. The simple fact is that they are acting like a petulant child. I voted Leave. If the result had went the other way. I would not bat an eyelid. Remainers have been searching for ways to stop Brexit from day dot. It's pathetic. No matter what they say their lawful reasons or whatever. They have no integrity. I pity them to be honest. Living this lie. You mention 'disgust'. It's an appropriate term against a government that does not behave lawfully.
Thank you for commenting. You made an interesting comment a few post ago. With regard to a user's response to the decision. You said, "it appears similar to sour grapes, as it wasn't the outcome you wanted or expected."
I'll tell what is sour grapes. Sour grapes sums up every Remainer action since the referendum result. We are in this mess, not because of Cameron, not because of Leave voters, not because of this court decision....we are in this mess, because Remainers cannot accept the democratic vote of the people of the UK. It's that simple. You all deny it but, you are only fooling yourself. Everybody knows. It's sour grapes and yes, it disgusts me that you all can't admit it. Always trying to spin it to blame others. I think Remainers should have a little thought about something. Look around you. All the noise and the shouting is from remainers. Every trick possible is being researched to reverse what the people voted for. What do think is going to happen if you are successful in stopping Brexit via these methods. Leavers haven't really ssid much but, get on with it and respect the vote. What do you think will happen if you get your way? I'll tell you what will happen. You're going to see Leavers really start to come out of the woodwork....be careful what you wish for. The majority of the UK want to leave the EU. We will not surrender to the EU any further and we will not allow the EU to control our country. Remainers are fearful spineless idiots. "Do you think it might be a good idea for you to go and lay down in a darkened room and have some quiet time? You sound very cross that democracy is working against you dear boy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. A Barrister advised me yesterday that Boris could appeal to the European Court of Justice !!!!!!!" Just repeating what he said - he is not a specialist in International Law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It ain't rocket science. There were only two possible outcomes. The status quo and major upheaval. If you are going to ask the public to choose, you might think it reasonable to be ready for either outcome. To plan ahead. Not the Conservative Party. I will simply never understand why any party could be so stupid to call a referendum with absolutely no plan for its outcome. Because they never expected the odds on favourite to lose. Not to have any plans is beyond incompetent. It would be a failure for children doing their GCSEs, yet these entitled yobs are big with talk, especially if it's lecturing or patronizing others but feeble on very basic steps of action. You'd fire them from very junior jobs anywhere. Launching Article 50 similarly without a feasible plan, was atrocious dereliction of duty. Johnson follows suit, with the clock ticking away but devoid of tangible and meaningful withdrawal proposals, whilst ignoring the very simple concept of time and planning. The fact that other countries, our trading partners, thousands of businesses and millions of people are subject to imposition of changes and require suitable implementation notice periods, matters not to the avaricious bottom feedersIt was a dereliction of duty by the labour mps too in that case as they also voted to trigger it." I love how right-wingers try to blame the Opposition for the failure of Government policy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Launching Article 50 similarly without a feasible plan, was atrocious dereliction of duty. It was a dereliction of duty by the labour mps too in that case as they also voted to trigger it." I didn't realise Labour were in Government at that time... Whadyaknow, you learn summit new everyday | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Brexit. It disgusts me that we are still in the EU. It's a simple reason too. We had a referendum. The option was to Remain in the EU or Leave the EU. Now, they were the choices. No matter the reason why people voted Remain or Leave. It is not relevant. People had their reasons for voting but everyone had to weigh up those reasons and then come to a final conclusion. Remain or Leave. The result was Leave the European Union. With that established. Article 50 was triggered and passsed unanimously in parliament. Next step is for the government to go into talks with the EU to see if they could negotiate a deal for leaving. The date of leaving was set. So that the UK would leave on the 29th March. If the UK and the EU were unable to come to a negotiated deal for leaving, then the UK would leave the EU on 29th March without a deal. The deal before leaving is the bonus, if it is beneficial to the UK. If not, then we leave on WTO terms and can negotiate again at a later stage as other countries do with the EU currently when looking to trade etc. Now this process is very simple in theory. The hard part is the negotiations. We would all like a nice sweet arrangement with the EU going forward but only if it is good for the UK. Which currently there isn't. So the next step is to leave with no deal. Now. If the result would've been Remain. We would still have our Euro sceptics and no doubt they would continue to have the discussions a out the EU, as they have done for years. I would not envisage the Leave camp getting on like the Remainers are currently. It's an embarrassment. We are the UK. We are a strong global player and we will prosper and survive as a nation, as we have done for centuries. The lack of faith in ourselves from the Remain camp is pathetic. Accept the result and show a bit of integrity. nice rant.... 1 teeny issue though... the govt were argueing in the supreme court was that this prorouging had nothing to do with brexit and was standard operating procedure...... the court didn't agree..... 11-0 the court said he did it to prevent parliament from carrying out there legal job..... With regards to that. It's a result of parliamentary and private remainers trying to derail the referendum result. Remainers can moan as much as they want. The simple fact is that they are acting like a petulant child. I voted Leave. If the result had went the other way. I would not bat an eyelid. Remainers have been searching for ways to stop Brexit from day dot. It's pathetic. No matter what they say their lawful reasons or whatever. They have no integrity. I pity them to be honest. Living this lie. You mention 'disgust'. It's an appropriate term against a government that does not behave lawfully.
Thank you for commenting. You made an interesting comment a few post ago. With regard to a user's response to the decision. You said, "it appears similar to sour grapes, as it wasn't the outcome you wanted or expected."
I'll tell what is sour grapes. Sour grapes sums up every Remainer action since the referendum result. We are in this mess, not because of Cameron, not because of Leave voters, not because of this court decision....we are in this mess, because Remainers cannot accept the democratic vote of the people of the UK. It's that simple. You all deny it but, you are only fooling yourself. Everybody knows. It's sour grapes and yes, it disgusts me that you all can't admit it. Always trying to spin it to blame others. I think Remainers should have a little thought about something. Look around you. All the noise and the shouting is from remainers. Every trick possible is being researched to reverse what the people voted for. What do think is going to happen if you are successful in stopping Brexit via these methods. Leavers haven't really ssid much but, get on with it and respect the vote. What do you think will happen if you get your way? I'll tell you what will happen. You're going to see Leavers really start to come out of the woodwork....be careful what you wish for. The majority of the UK want to leave the EU. We will not surrender to the EU any further and we will not allow the EU to control our country. Remainers are fearful spineless idiots. "Ahhh, is Brexit not going the way you hoped??stop moaning , snowflake | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Remainers are fearful spineless idiots. " You do realise we may have left the EU by now if it wasn't for the "leave voting MP's" Voting against May's withdrawl agreement mainly the ERG..... Yes, leavers have also played their fair share in this fiasco | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. A Barrister advised me yesterday that Boris could appeal to the European Court of Justice !!!!!!! Just repeating what he said - he is not a specialist in International Law. " I wouldn’t take legal advice from your friend in future .30 seconds on google could of told you the ECJ has no jurisdiction with regard the recent Supreme Court ruling ..Every day is a school day. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. A Barrister advised me yesterday that Boris could appeal to the European Court of Justice !!!!!!! Just repeating what he said - he is not a specialist in International Law. I wouldn’t take legal advice from your friend in future .30 seconds on google could of told you the ECJ has no jurisdiction with regard the recent Supreme Court ruling ..Every day is a school day." The clue is kinda in the name E for European | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A Barrister advised me yesterday that Boris could appeal to the European Court of Justice !!!!!!! Just repeating what he said - he is not a specialist in International Law. " I honestly wouldn't have thought you'd need to be a specialist in International Law to know that the ECJ only rules on European Law Even I didn't need Google for that one | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a Welshman who voted out it baffles me that the majority of people in wales vote labour and also voted out! That welsh labour have made a statement that they intend to back remain. The best case so far that politicians do not listen to their constituents. The politicians who back this against how the public voted should have their seats removed under a vote of no confidence from the public they suposidly represent " The MPs were elected in 2017, a year after the referendum. One might think the public knew who they were voting for and why. But no, this obsession with Brexit destroys all rational thought and leads to ludicrous ideas like yours. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The judgement that has just been made signals the truth. We are not a democracy but an oligarchy, ruled by 11 unelected old judges. There is no appeal against anything they rule. This is the final nail in Brexit's coffin, hammered in by a bunch or old remainiacs. Time to get the yellow vests on and take to the streets. They need reminding that the people are the power, not the judges. We are ruled by consent, which we must withdraw. Incidentally, why did we have 11 supreme court judges while the USA has only 9? Jobs for the elite, of course. A Barrister advised me yesterday that Boris could appeal to the European Court of Justice !!!!!!! Just repeating what he said - he is not a specialist in International Law. " Doesn't sound like a specialist in any sort of law if he thinks the ECJ has any jurisdiction on matters of the UK constitution. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a Welshman who voted out it baffles me that the majority of people in wales vote labour and also voted out! That welsh labour have made a statement that they intend to back remain. The best case so far that politicians do not listen to their constituents. The politicians who back this against how the public voted should have their seats removed under a vote of no confidence from the public they suposidly represent The MPs were elected in 2017, a year after the referendum. One might think the public knew who they were voting for and why. But no, this obsession with Brexit destroys all rational thought and leads to ludicrous ideas like yours." The vote in 2017 was based on labour mps standing on a manifesto to abide by the brexit result and aid Britain to leave the eu. Now welsh labour are acting against this manifesto and the will of the people. At the end of the day the uk voted out . For better or worse that result needs to be acted on. With a general election people vote knowing who ever wins wouldd be there for the foreseeable future for better or worse So a result is a result out means leave | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Remainers are fearful spineless idiots. You do realise we may have left the EU by now if it wasn't for the "leave voting MP's" Voting against May's withdrawl agreement mainly the ERG..... Yes, leavers have also played their fair share in this fiasco " I'll try that again 
That's probably because they didn't want Treason's Remain deal and want to be out so as to not be handing over powers to the EU in the future. For example, the EU are after our military at the moment to create their EU army (which is really about having more power to stamp out any protesters)
As for the insult at the top, wow that's rare because it seems to be from a leave voter.
No one wants to leave at a bad cost but getting the EU tentacles out of us is the most important thing for now since this is highly likely the only chance we will ever get. Then the rest of Europe can concentrate on getting out to their freedom too, leaving the EU alone with no power in their tower of babel knockoff.
Off the top of my head I don't know of any nations who crashed economically after gaining freedom, whether from the USSR, Iron Curtain, or er Britain in the case of America...
Gotta love how the BBC, Channel 4 etc try to make it look like Britain is full of remainers with a few fringe leavers around - that's not what the vote said.
Incidentally, Facebook are now cracking down on anyone simply liking or sharing a Leave based post! People who do are now having to provide ID etc, which doesn't seem to be the case for those who wanted to remain. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Remainers are fearful spineless idiots. You do realise we may have left the EU by now if it wasn't for the "leave voting MP's" Voting against May's withdrawl agreement mainly the ERG..... Yes, leavers have also played their fair share in this fiasco I'll try that again
That's probably because they didn't want Treason's Remain deal and want to be out so as to not be handing over powers to the EU in the future. For example, the EU are after our military at the moment to create their EU army (which is really about having more power to stamp out any protesters)
As for the insult at the top, wow that's rare because it seems to be from a leave voter.
No one wants to leave at a bad cost but getting the EU tentacles out of us is the most important thing for now since this is highly likely the only chance we will ever get. Then the rest of Europe can concentrate on getting out to their freedom too, leaving the EU alone with no power in their tower of babel knockoff.
Off the top of my head I don't know of any nations who crashed economically after gaining freedom, whether from the USSR, Iron Curtain, or er Britain in the case of America...
Gotta love how the BBC, Channel 4 etc try to make it look like Britain is full of remainers with a few fringe leavers around - that's not what the vote said.
Incidentally, Facebook are now cracking down on anyone simply liking or sharing a Leave based post! People who do are now having to provide ID etc, which doesn't seem to be the case for those who wanted to remain."Have another referendum? The old one is now irrelevant ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No point starting a petition because if the outcome doesn t meet the expectations of the mp s they wont act on it anyway.i now agree with the increasing number of people what is the point in voting on anything political wanymore when the people it effects will not act on it if it doesn t suit them. They original brexit vote shocked the majority of mps from all parties and they have all done their best since then to stop the will of the majority of people who voted out. I was not old enough to vote on the entry to the eu but understand it was for trading purposes not to hand our balls on a plate to a faceless cartel of people who most people don t know. For them tell us how to live our lives set our laws and dictate who we can do business with. Ease of trade in the eu is a good idea but each country should have control of its own laws, rules and who else they can do business with. the cartel is scared that if we leave and do well then the eu as it stands will collapse and the cartel will loose all of its power.the people of the eu are starting to wake up too.the French and German public are starting to complain about how much money the pile into the Eu and how little they get back." Then you need to educate yourself. A European military alliance was first mooted in the 1950s. The single currency was first discussed in 1969. The UK £ was pegged briefly to the first € exchange rate mechanism for convergence before the first referendum. The idea that Britain signed up to something that was only about trade is simply false. But it is a narrative repeatedly peddled by Leavers to justify their outlook. Fake news, basically. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Suprised this thread hasn't been stopped or closed yet for the majorty of messages are for leaving the eu With a deal or not. Watch this space your emails will soon be inundated with remain spam lol " The foil is strong in this one.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Suprised this thread hasn't been stopped or closed yet for the majorty of messages are for leaving the eu With a deal or not. Watch this space your emails will soon be inundated with remain spam lol The foil is strong in this one.. "Thank you lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree, people who voted for brexit should take to the streets. I want a good look at them.Right will prevail we are not thugs like remoaners" What is a remoaner? Given that the right does have more of a tendency to thuggery, I wouldn’t be too sure about that. And what is right anyway? Crashing out of the EU, screwing up the economy, things getting more expensive, people losing jobs, businesses going under and general economic chaos? Yeah, happy days! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree, people who voted for brexit should take to the streets. I want a good look at them.Right will prevail we are not thugs like remoaners What is a remoaner? Given that the right does have more of a tendency to thuggery, I wouldn’t be too sure about that. And what is right anyway? Crashing out of the EU, screwing up the economy, things getting more expensive, people losing jobs, businesses going under and general economic chaos? Yeah, happy days!" Wouldn t that be the same for Scotland if it had independance. The same for Wales and N.Ireland | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree, people who voted for brexit should take to the streets. I want a good look at them.Right will prevail we are not thugs like remoaners What is a remoaner? Given that the right does have more of a tendency to thuggery, I wouldn’t be too sure about that. And what is right anyway? Crashing out of the EU, screwing up the economy, things getting more expensive, people losing jobs, businesses going under and general economic chaos? Yeah, happy days!" There were also left wingers who voted to leave. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
