Politics

[miamiwhite]

1 hour ago, frank_spencer said:

 

That’s so last night Frank.

[Salford Trotter]

20 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?

He knew exactly what he was doing and that was an attempt to shut up Parliament. 

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

14 minutes ago, miamiwhite said:

That’s so last night Frank.

Cheers Si.

Found this a bit lower down, which confirms precisely what I said above.

No way of determining that he lied to the queen.

Further up your link, also suggestions that it being unlawful isn't the same as illegal- though it is just a comment

[Tonge moor green jacket]

28 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

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. 

She talked about the length of time, which was clearly longer than normal. Clearly an attempt to frustrate parliament. No doubt about that, and no real evidence offered.

There is however no definitive time period, and it probably can't be ever fixed.

Thus it becomes an interpretation and they have taken that and unsurprisingly reached their decision. 

There is no fixed, definitive law governing this though. If there was then the government wouldn't have been able to go beyond the time period, and the basic argument of it not being in the remit of the court would have been of no relevance.

 

[ZiggyStardust]

35 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

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. 

If that law had already existed, there would be no need for the first part of the case - "The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty is justiciable", as the existing law would already establish that it is.

This is new law.

 

[ZiggyStardust]

1 minute ago, ZiggyStardust said:

If that law had already existed, there would be no need for the first part of the case - "The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty is justiciable", as the existing law would already establish that it is.

This is new law.

 

Or cetainly a new interpretation of law that does not specifically address this issue.

[Mounts Kipper]

55 minutes ago, kent_white said:

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.

Aye but in my opinion the judgement was politically motivated and I think many folk will draw exactly the same conclusion. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Mounts Kipper

[Salford Trotter]

19 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Aye but in my opinion the judgement was politically motivated and I think many folk will draw exactly the same conclusion. 

in my opinion and in the opinion of the vast majority of the electorate they would say your opinion is absolute nonsense

[Gonk]

It's all going rather well isn't it!

[Jol_BWFC]

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

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.

Next time I meet a crown court judge I’ll accuse him of being criminally motivated.

[Mounts Kipper]

9 minutes ago, Salford Trotter said:

in my opinion and in the opinion of the vast majority of the electorate they would say your opinion is absolute nonsense

You speak for the vast majority now, dear me. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Ian blackford and others, and the people's vote.

What deal do they propose to offer- until one has been agreed by parliament it couldn't be offered as an option. Surely therefore parliament has to reach some agreement eventually, which would then deliver brexit and make the pr moot?

[Salford Trotter]

5 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

You speak for the vast majority now, dear me. 

It didn't stop you from talking on behalf of other folk🤔😂

This is the Supreme Court of this country, the highest court of the land and you are saying it is "politically motivated" . Just take a moment to reflect on what you are suggesting there mate and yes I standby that they are not politically motivated and the vast majority of the UK, in my opinion, would agree with me. 

[Winchester White]

It is a right old mess. I don't think there is much more to add.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Salford Trotter said:

It didn't stop you from talking on behalf of other folk🤔😂

This is the Supreme Court of this country, the highest court of the land and you are saying it is "politically motivated" . Just take a moment to reflect on what you are suggesting there mate and yes I standby that they are not politically motivated and the vast majority of the UK, in my opinion, would agree with me. 

We want British sovereignty and British courts - oh not that sovereignty or those courts.....

Brexit is just an angry baying mob at this point who haven't got a clue what it is they are angry about anymore. 

[Ani]

46 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Aye but in my opinion the judgement was politically motivated and I think many folk will draw exactly the same conclusion. 

As I said earlier your opinion is based purely on the fact the judgement is not what you wanted. 

You have gone all Donald Trump. Anyone not agreeing with your view is accused of being a very naughty boy (or girl). Amazing all 11 were swayed by the same political motivation. Those damn leftie judges, traitors. 

[Spider]

27 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

You speak for the vast majority now, dear me. 

You lost

get over it

[ZiggyStardust]

To be fair, This is the best thing to happen.

Brexit will now be sorted by Oct 14th. Won't it ? Is there any way that now the MP's are back, that it won't be resolved ?

Get the bunting out.

[Mounts Kipper]

6 minutes ago, Spider said:

You lost

get over it

I’m over it, in fact could care less which way it goes now, the public need a vote at a general election and whatever the people decide then is fine by me. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Mounts Kipper

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I’m over it, in fact could care less which way it goes now, the public need a vote at a general election and whatever the people decide then is fine by me. 

The only direct way to answer the question is another referendum. That is needed now more than ever. 

[Mounts Kipper]

8 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

The only direct way to answer the question is another referendum. That is needed now more than ever. 

No referendum that’s been done, GE only way forward. And make no mistake it’s an unofficial in out referendum. 

[ZiggyStardust]

11 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

The only direct way to answer the question is another referendum. That is needed now more than ever. 

We would need a referendum to decide on the question to ask in the referendum.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

No referendum that’s been done, GE only way forward. And make no mistake it’s an unofficial in out referendum. 

We did a GE too. More recently than a referendum. 

You can't establish any mandate in a GE. We need to ask the public directly what they want to do. It is absolutely imperative now. And I've not been in favour of another referendum but one is needed now. Its the only way this thing will ever end. 

[Jol_BWFC]

13 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

No referendum that’s been done, GE only way forward. And make no mistake it’s an unofficial in out referendum. 

And if it’s a hung parliament, what then?

[Norpig]

i think the idea of an emergency Government is the best idea, Boris is like a bull in a china shop and can't be trusted to make a rational decision on anything other than what blonde he shags next.