Politics

[Mounts Kipper]

Seems the attorney general agrees with me, and the decision is politically motivated. 

https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive-pm-was-advised-by-attorney-general-suspension-was-lawful-11818599

Edited September 24, 2019 by Mounts Kipper

[leigh white]

4 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Corbyns just lied his way through that speech, shame he won’t get in power so we can hold him accountable for the lies he’s just spouted for the last hour. 

Could be right, see it all pans out. One thing, you will never see a Tory MP in Leigh.

[Mounts Kipper]

1 minute ago, leigh white said:

Could be right, see it all pans out. One thing, you will never see a Tory MP in Leigh.

Shame folk vote only because of old political loyalty and not out of reasoned and rational thought process. Anyone believing Corbyn speech and his ideas are good for the U.K. and pie in the sky needs certifying. 

[MickyD]

So attorney general and supreme court get to fight it out between themselves.

[kent_white]

1 minute ago, paulhanley said:

We either leave the EU or we no longer live in a democracy.

Black or white logical fallacy. I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the longer this goes on - then imposing a referendum that happened years ago is undemocratic. I reckon you can still just about get away with calling the result legitimate - but if we're still in the same boat after longer than a normal governments term in office then I think there's strong grounds to argue that it's result is no longer valid.

My preferred outcome would still be to leave with a deal. Even though I think we'll be worse off - just because I can't be arsed with the fallout of a failure to do so. But I do think there has to be some sort of time limit before we have to put it to the vote again. With fresh eyes about the realities of it. 

[ZiggyStardust]

1 minute ago, MickyD said:

So attorney general and supreme court get to fight it out between themselves.

Does that get BJ off the leash if the AG had told him it was legal ?

[leigh white]

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Shame folk vote only because of old political loyalty and not out of reasoned and rational thought process. Anyone believing Corbyn speech and his ideas are good for the U.K. and pie in the sky needs certifying. 

Any working class tory what votes for a decline in living standards must have Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

12 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Thought in British law you had to be conclusively proven guilty.... seems not. 

This is different in this situation. The decision wasn't whether he was allowed to prorogue, but the time involved being clearly more than enough for a queen's speech. Which it was.

As Boris, nor anyone else offered any reasonable reasons (witness statement) to support the extended period, then they felt it was unlawful.

If some suitable evidence had been provided, it may well have been different. Don't know why they didn't offer anything, other than a few official documents.

In making this decision they have in effect created new law. Precedent which may have ramifications in the future, but for now it just means the decision to prorogue is quashed.

Despite plenty of screechers saying treason, a criminal offence like drink driving hasn't been committed. It wasn't a trial.

Plenty of MPs shouting for this that and the other, but they can't even agree as to whether he should resign, be subject to a vote of no confidence, or do nowt. Even Soubry saying he shouldn't resign.

Boris still saying he's going to get a deal.

What new legislation parliament will try to create in the meantime, well fuck knows.

[kent_white]

9 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Seems the attorney general agrees with me, and the decision is politically motivated. 

https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive-pm-was-advised-by-attorney-general-suspension-was-lawful-11818599

Agreed with you and was wrong. And now his judgement is being called into question. Luckily for you - you're just a bloke on a football forum and not an Attorney General.

[Mounts Kipper]

2 minutes ago, leigh white said:

Any working class tory what votes for a decline in living standards must have Stockholm Syndrome.

 

Voting for Corbyns labour will guarantee we will all be poorer, and the British public know it, that’s why it won’t happen. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

5 minutes ago, leigh white said:

Any working class tory what votes for a decline in living standards must have Stockholm Syndrome.

 

Bit of a major assumption there.

Oh, and it might be that a brexit party MP gets a Leigh gig.

[kent_white]

2 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Voting for Corbyns labour will guarantee we will all be poorer, and the British public know it, that’s why it won’t happen. 

The same could be said about leaving the EU. And look what happened there. I wouldn't write anything off given recent history - especially given the utter shambles presented before us at the moment.

I genuinely cannot believe our great country has been reduced to this!

[paulhanley]

11 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Black or white logical fallacy. I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the longer this goes on - then imposing a referendum that happened years ago is undemocratic. I reckon you can still just about get away with calling the result legitimate - but if we're still in the same boat after longer than a normal governments term in office then I think there's strong grounds to argue that it's result is no longer valid.

My preferred outcome would still be to leave with a deal. Even though I think we'll be worse off - just because I can't be arsed with the fallout of a failure to do so. But I do think there has to be some sort of time limit before we have to put it to the vote again. With fresh eyes about the realities of it. 

This is all about remainers playing for time so they can seek to press exactly your argument. Remainers obstructing Brexit then claiming we need another vote because the original was x years ago. Do you really think those of who voted leave can't see through this? Do you understand the corrosive nature of having your vote disregarded - both to the individuals concerned and democracy as a whole? 

If there is ever a second referendum and remain win, what is to stop leavers campaigning immediately for a third? Remainers have set the bar at record lows in terms of respecting the outcome of polls. This is a very deep hole you are digging.

I'm happy for "a deal" if "a deal" is not Brexit in name only. We need what we voted for (despite people claiming we didn't know what we voted for). That's leaving the EU and all of its institutions. If the EU wants a free trade deal - great. That's what we voted to join in the 1970s. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by paulhanley

[Tonge moor green jacket]

5 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Agreed with you and was wrong. And now his judgement is being called into question. Luckily for you - you're just a bloke on a football forum and not an Attorney General.

I don't believe they were motivated politically, and would hope they put any opinions to one side.

That said, it's possible they were (theoretically) but we'd never know, can't prove it, and should therefore accept it and move on.

Just a pity some remain MPs won't do likewise over the referendum result.

 

[leigh white]

6 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Voting for Corbyns labour will guarantee we will all be poorer, and the British public know it, that’s why it won’t happen. 

Did you miss any away games because you were skint when Labour was in power ? 

[Mounts Kipper]

1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I don't believe they were motivated politically, and would hope they put any opinions to one side.

That said, it's possible they were (theoretically) but we'd never know, can't prove it, and should therefore accept it and move on.

Just a pity some remain MPs won't do likewise over the referendum result.

 

The fall out form the supreme courts decision will be very interesting, I don’t think this is the last we will hear of this decision and the judges involved. 

[Salford Trotter]

51 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

What actual evidence was offered that BJ prorogued to stop parliament debating Brexit? None whatsoever, only an admission from BJ or Cummings could prove that conclusively. 

Therefore without any concrete evidence I can only conclude it was politically motivated. 

Johnson offered no witness statement to the SC which they found very surprising and suggested some skullduggery. So he brought it on himself

[Mounts Kipper]

2 minutes ago, leigh white said:

Did you miss any away games because you were skint when Labour was in power ? 

We had no power when labour were in power. 😂

Edited September 24, 2019 by Mounts Kipper

[leigh white]

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

We had no power when labour were in power. 😂

Correction, it was the Tory boys when we had the power cuts in 72 and 74 under Ted Heath.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 minutes ago, Salford Trotter said:

Johnson offered no witness statement to the SC which they found very surprising and suggested some skullduggery. So he brought it on himself

I too was surprised, and you could see this on the faces of the judges.

I don't think it was skulduggery as such, just that it was fairly obvious that the bi-product of proroguing would halt parliament.

Perhaps he should have been honest, and said we need the time to get a proper deal done with the EU, and allow for a vote afterwards.

Dunno if it would have washed, but offering nothing was odd.

[MalcolmW]

30 minutes ago, leigh white said:

Could be right, see it all pans out. One thing, you will never see a Tory MP in Leigh.

Only beaten Labour once (but those pesky Liberals got in).

[kent_white]

13 minutes ago, paulhanley said:

This is all about remainers playing for time so they can seek to press exactly your argument. Remainers obstructing Brexit then claiming we need another vote because the original was x years ago. Do you really think those of who voted leave can't see through this? Do you understand the corrosive nature of having your vote disregarded - both to the individuals concerned and democracy as a whole? 

If there is ever a second referendum and remain win, what is to stop leavers campaigning immediately for a third? Remainers have set the bar at record lows in terms of respecting the outcome of polls. This is a very deep hole you are digging.

I'm happy for "a deal" if "a deal" is not Brexit in name only. We need what we voted for (despite people claiming we didn't know what we voted for). That's leaving the EU and all of its institutions. If the EU wants a free trade deal - great. That's what we voted to join in the 1970s. 

I don't agree with your basic premise. I think parliament has done nothing but try and find a way out of the EU for the past 3 years. I just don't see this delay as a form of obstruction reasoning. The leave side have been just as culpable as the remain in terms of voting down deals.

I just think that the reality is that in the way our democracy works (yes democracy) it's incredibly difficult to find a consensus that enough people agree on to make the will of the people happen. That being the case - how long do we continue wasting time and energy on something that might not ever happen?

And to answer your question - there would be nothing to stop brexiteers from immediately campaigning for another referendum. That's why the referendum was a monumentally bad idea in the first place.

I get your argument though. It must be incredibly frustrating as someone who wants to leave to be within touching distance of the promised land but it still seemingly being out of reach. 

Similarly it's frustrating to be someone who didn't want to leave but seeing the country slowly implode in an attempt to enact something which you think is a bad idea. 

I don't know what to think anymore. It's just a bloody mess - and half the country hates the other half. And whatever route we take - half the country is going to continue to be pissed off at the other half. What an utterly miserable state of affairs.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

15 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

The fall out form the supreme courts decision will be very interesting, I don’t think this is the last we will hear of this decision and the judges involved. 

I agree entirely. I do wonder if there is scope to go to them again, with an accusation that those MPs who have said they won't back any deal, despite standing on a manifesto of leave, and more importantly, having voted in into law, are themselves acting unlawfully, and deliberately sabotaging any efforts by the "executive" to undertake their role.

 

[Biggish Dave]

Fortunately I don’t see Labour coming in the top 2 in a G.E, Corbyn and his left wing loonies will see to that

[Salford Trotter]

57 minutes ago, darwen_white said:

 

Can someone explain what's actually changed today with regard to us leaving the EU?

 

 

 

Johnson fought the law and the law won. The law also says if he hasn't got a WA deal through Parliament by 19th October he has to request an extension if not he will be in court himself for breaking the law. 

You were warned