MalcolmW Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Moon boy said: He actually has, called an election, October 15th🤫 Pre-Cameron that would have gone through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon boy Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, mickbrown said: Government By who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon boy Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, MalcolmW said: Pre-Cameron that would have gone through. Back to Anarchy then Edited September 24, 2019 by Moon boy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Tonge moor green jacket Posted September 24, 2019 Site Supporter Share Posted September 24, 2019 When parliament comes back, what are they going to scrutinise re brexit? No deal taken off the table before end of October. Discussion still ongoing with the EU. Until something is agreed and can be brought back for voting on, what is there to discuss? Iirc when TM was doing the negotiating, occasional updates were presented, but no discussion within parliament of strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted September 24, 2019 Site Supporter Share Posted September 24, 2019 Could Boris not appeal against the decision and take it to the European Court of Justice? Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Casino said: you are truly delusional Really! The Supreme Court have now opened a can of worms, they have made a judgement on a government decision and as such have a made a political decision and have over ruled the government, therefore it is clearly a political motivated decision. Where we go from here god only knows. Edited September 24, 2019 by Mounts Kipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickbrown Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, Moon boy said: By who? The point is this fucker wanted to shut down parliament so we could drift to a no deal on the 31st. You surely don’t believe anything different do you? He's fucked up. Again. Have parliament back in, working towards a deal. If no deal extend the deadline and call a GE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted September 24, 2019 Site Supporter Share Posted September 24, 2019 Just now, Mounts Kipper said: Really! The Supreme Court have now opened a can of worms, they have made a decision on a government decision and as such have a made a political decision and over ruled the government, therefore it is clearly a political motivated decision. Where we go from here god only knows. Honestly, you’re wrong. You are basically saying that the highest court in the land is unfit for purpose. Because you disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Just now, Spider said: Honestly, you’re wrong. You are basically saying that the highest court in the land is unfit for purpose. Because you disagree. No I’m not I’m saying they shouldn’t of got involved in politics, big problems ahead I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickbrown Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said: Really! The Supreme Court have now opened a can of worms, they have made a judgement on a government decision and as such have a made a political decision and have over ruled the government, therefore it is clearly a political motivated decision. Where we go from here god only knows. Would have been a way bigger can of worms if he’d got away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted September 24, 2019 Site Supporter Share Posted September 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said: No I’m not I’m saying they shouldn’t of got involved in politics, big problems ahead I think. Of COURSE they should. MP’s are not above the law of the land just because they make them. Think, Mounts. Think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwfcfan5 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said: No I’m not I’m saying they shouldn’t of got involved in politics, big problems ahead I think. 11 judges all far more qualified than you unanimously disagree. I think you should become just 1% as knowledgeable and qualified as they are and then come back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_white Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Spider said: Honestly, you’re wrong. You are basically saying that the highest court in the land is unfit for purpose. Because you disagree. Precisely. The burden of proof is with you on this one Mounts. What evidence have you got that the decision is politically motivated? Otter than that you don't like it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted September 24, 2019 Site Supporter Share Posted September 24, 2019 Just now, kent_white said: Precisely. The burden of proof is with you on this one Mounts. What evidence have you got that the decision is politically motivated? Otter than that you don't like it? Especially given the 11 judges fall bang into the demographic of your average Leave voter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ani Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 8 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said: Really! The Supreme Court have now opened a can of worms, they have made a judgement on a government decision and as such have a made a political decision and have over ruled the government, therefore it is clearly a political motivated decision. Where we go from here god only knows. Why is it politically motivated ? That means that the decision is affected by their personal views rather than interpreting the law. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to make decisions that are not politically motivated. You are arguing purely because  you do not like the outcome. Unfortunately every step of this process is being twisted by people having to claim victory or denying defeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyldesley_white Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Spider said: Especially given the 11 judges fall bang into the demographic of your average Leave voter... and they also fell bang in line with the Scottish court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter MickyD Posted September 24, 2019 Site Supporter Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Salford Trotter said: The fact is Johnson broke the law, what part of that don't you understand?  If BJ made a well intended decision which later turned out to have been outside of the constitution, did he break the law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwfcfan5 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, MickyD said:  If BJ made a well intended decision which later turned out to have been outside of the constitution, did he break the law? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted September 24, 2019 Site Supporter Share Posted September 24, 2019 I thought the EU made all these kind of decisions these days? Has Brexit not come about to stop them interfering in our laws and processes? Strange how we’ve managed all this without their help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Ani said: Why is it politically motivated ? That means that the decision is affected by their personal views rather than interpreting the law. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to make decisions that are not politically motivated. You are arguing purely because  you do not like the outcome. Unfortunately every step of this process is being twisted by people having to claim victory or denying defeat. The Supreme Court have made a decision on a political matter therefore by it’s nature, it has to be politically motivated, as proroguing has been going on for centuries without the Supreme Court being asked to make a legal judgement until now and the challenge being made by opposition to the government also means it is a political motivated challenge and therefore a politically motivated judgement. Edited September 24, 2019 by Mounts Kipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Tonge moor green jacket Posted September 24, 2019 Site Supporter Share Posted September 24, 2019 8 minutes ago, MickyD said: Â If BJ made a well intended decision which later turned out to have been outside of the constitution, did he break the law? That's what I asked earlier. At the time there was no law saying you can't do what he did. Now the court has said that move is unlawful: a proper legal bod would be able to explain any difference if there is. As it is, it doesn't seem to matter- just seen a brief interview and he doesn't seem likely to resign and is pressing on with discussions with the EU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwfcfan5 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said: That's what I asked earlier. At the time there was no law saying you can't do what he did. Now the court has said that move is unlawful: a proper legal bod would be able to explain any difference if there is. As it is, it doesn't seem to matter- just seen a brief interview and he doesn't seem likely to resign and is pressing on with discussions with the EU. Yes there was. They read it out. Not allowed to prorogue to frustrate parliament without good cause. They did that. It wasn't a new thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_white Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 14 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said: The Supreme Court have made a decision on a political matter therefore by it’s nature, it has to be politically motivated, as proroguing has been going on for centuries without the Supreme Court being asked to make a legal judgement until now and the challenge being made by opposition to the government also means it is a political motivated challenge and therefore a politically motivated judgement. There's a big difference between making a judgement on a political matter and being politically motivated. They mean two very different things and you know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Tonge moor green jacket Posted September 24, 2019 Site Supporter Share Posted September 24, 2019 Looking almost certain that a further, but shorter prorogation will happen to enable a queen's speech, going off what he's saying now. One expert reckoning maybe October 7th, so to keep the current date of the 14th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamiwhite Posted September 24, 2019 Author Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said: Sorry - the advice he gave to the queen was unlawful! Super. You say certain folk lie all the time. It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to work out, that you are one self opinionated, bitter lying bastard. As you were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.